- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33236 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI.SHANKARAIAH H.M., S/O LATE MARISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER EXECUTIVE-I, IN THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD R/AT NO.287, POSTAL AND RMS LAYOUT, SHAKTHI NAGAR, SAATHGALLI, NAZARBAD, MYSORE - 570 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREETHAM JUDE CORREA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD, (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) SITUATED AT MSIL HOUSE NO.236, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD, MYSORE TRADE CENTER, OPPOSITE KSTRC BUS STAND, MYSORE.570 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER. 3. SRI.T.N. KARNA KUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER , THE MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD, MYSORE TRADE CENTER, OPPOSITE KSTRC BUS STAND, MYSORE.570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B S GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2 SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER NO YN/163/2024-25 DATED 26.11.2024 OF OFFICE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 IN SO FAR AS RELATE TO THE PETITIONER AT SL.NO.1 AND SL.NO.3 OF THE R-3 ARE CONCERNED AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE LAND IN SO FAR AS RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND R-3 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.YN/163/2024-25, dated 26.11.2004, in so far as it relates to his transfer as Branch head, Mangalore and Udupi from Branch head, Mysore and the transfer and posting of the respondent No.3 in his place as Branch head, Mysore. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to allow him to continue as a Manager Executive-I in the respondent No.2 till his retirement and extend all consequential benefit. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 2. The petitioner contends that he was transferred from the post of Deputy Manager (Sales), Gulbarga Division to Branch Head, Mysore Branch and DLO, Mysore District on 25.05.2023. He contends that he would be retiring from service on 30.11.2025. When such being the case, ignoring the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government, the respondent No.1 transferred the petitioner from Mysore to Mangalore. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order of transfer and also the order of posting the respondent No.3 in his place. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a Group–B officer and as per the transfer guidelines of the State Government, a Group–B officer is entitled to continue in the same post for a minimum period of two years. He contends that the petitioner is also entitled to continue in the same place and post since he is on the verge of retirement. However, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without considering these facts, mechanically and arbitrarily transferred the petitioner to Mangalore and posted the respondent No.3 in his place at Mysore. He therefore prays that the impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 order of transfer and order of posting respondent No.3 be set aside. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed statement of objections contending inter alia, that the writ petition has become infructuous as the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have assumed charge at their respective places and have been performing duties from the date of the order of transfer and therefore, this writ petition does not survive for consideration. They contend that the petitioner was earlier working at Gulbarga and was later transferred to Mysore on 25.05.2023 and he was also given additional charge of Mangalore on 28.08.2024. The petitioner took charge at Mysore and had taken additional charge of Mangalore. They contend that the orders of transfer are based on the business interest of the company and that there are shortage of few officials. They contend that the petitioner had put in more than 18 months at Mysore before being transferred to Mangalore on 26.11.2024 and therefore, he would not be prejudiced in any manner. Therefore, they pray that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. The respondent No.3 has also filed statement of objections reiterating the above contentions of the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 Nos.1 and 2. He also contends that he took charge at Mysore and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. 6. The petitioner had challenged the order of his transfer dated 26.11.2024. This Court did not grant any interim prayer. The petitioner abided the order of transfer and reported to duty at Mangalore. By merely reporting to duty at Mangalore, this writ petition does not become infructuous. If the petitioner had not reported to duty at Mangalore, that would have been a misconduct and the petitioner rightly did not take the risk of facing an enquiry during the fag end of his career. The action of the respondents has to be tested on the anvil of the transfer guidelines framed by the State Government. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have stated that transfer guidelines are not framed in its organization, but transfer are based on administrative exigencies. The impugned order does not bear out any reason for transfer of the petitioner that too when he was on the verge of retirement. The transfer of the petitioner is therefore liable to be held as not based on any real administrative need. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been able to establish the special purpose in need of petitioner at Mangalore. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13573 WP No. 33236 of 2024 7. In that view of the matter, the order of transfer of the petitioner from Mysore to Mangalore warrants interference. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order transferring the petitioner from Mysore to Mangalore is set aside. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take immediate steps to ensure reposting of the petitioner at Mysore. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to decide the place of posting for the respondent No.3. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17