IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION No.36173/2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: PRASAHANT KUDLIGI S/O LATE VISWANATH K AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) BESCOM, O & M DIVISION TUMKURU- 572102. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MISS M.L. SUVARNA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTION CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560009. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN & HR) THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009. 2 3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009. 4. PRAKASH M.V. MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) TRANSMISSION & MAINTENANCE CIRCLE KPTCL, RAMAGANARA BESCOM, TUMKURU-562159 .….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A CHANDRACHUD, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 SRI M.C. NAGASHREE, ADV. FOR R3 SRI P.A. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 31.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.12.2024 BEARING NO. KAVIPRANINI/ PRAVA(C)/ VYA(AA)/ B100/ 06/2024 (ANN-F TO THE WP) ISSUED BY THE R2, BY ISSUING A WRIT. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT 3 CAV ORDER The petitioner, an Executive Engineer (Elec.) of BESCOM is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the O.M. dated 30.12.2024 transferring the petitioner to O&M Circle, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Ramanagara (for short “KPTCL”) and posting respondent No.4 in his place. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 belong to the cadre of Executive Engineer (Elec.) in the 3rd respondent-BESCOM. The petitioner was posted to work as Executive Engineer (Elec.), O&M Division, BESCOM, Tumkur under O.M. dated 21.10.2022 and on 31.10.2022, the petitioner took charge of the said post. Under O.M. dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure-F), the petitioner is transferred from O&M Division, BESCOM, Tumkur to O&M Division, KPTCL, Ramanagara and 4 respondent No.4 who was working at Ramanagara is posted to Tumkur in petitioner’s place. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have completed their tenure of two years at Tumkur and Ramanagara, respectively. Questioning the transfer and posting of petitioner as well as respondent No.4, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for Smt.M.L.Suvarna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.A.Chandrachud for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers and also original file relating to the impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024 produced before the Court at the time of hearing. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for petitioner would submit that transfer of petitioner and 5 posting of respondent No.4 under impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024 is opposed to the Government Order dated 25.06.2024/Guidelines for transfer which is adopted by the first respondent under order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure-D). Learned senior counsel also would submit that though the petitioner has completed his tenure of two years at Tumkur, his transfer is subsequent to the period of General Transfer. He submits that the period of General Transfer was extended up to 31.07.2024, but the impugned order is dated 30.12.2024, much after the period of General Transfer. If the transfer is after the period of General Transfer, in terms of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, on prior approval of the Chief Minister under special or exceptional circumstances would be permissible. As it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that no approval of the Chief Minister is obtained to transfer the petitioner and posting respondent No.4 6 and no special or exceptional reasons are forthcoming to effect the order, the transfer is bad in law. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19087/2022 disposed of on 21.10.2022 as well as the order dated 14.07.2022 in W.P.No.13439/2022. 5. Further, learned senior counsel would contend that the wife of the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor at Shree Siddartha Institute of Technology and as per clause 7(1)(d) of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, the petitioner ought to be provided posting at the working place of spouse. Moreover, he submits that son of the petitioner is studying at Tumkur and it would affect his education, if the transfer is given effect to, during the academic year. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7 6. Per contra, Sri.A.Chandrachud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the respondents would not be filing any statement of objections, but would produce the original file relating to the impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024 wherein transfer and posting of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is effected. Learned counsel Sri.Chandrachud would invite attention of this Court to the notice in the original file and submits that as directed by the Chief Minister, the transfer has taken place and the same is also approved by the concerned Minister on 06.01.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that in terms of the Note issued by the Chief Minister to effect transfer, transfer order was effected, since both petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have completed two years of their tenure. However, he submits that since the petitioner and respondent No.4 have completed their tenure of 2 8 years, they have no right to continue in their respective posts and they are liable for transfer. 7. Learned counsel Sri.P.A.Kulkarni appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner has completed his tenure of two years, as such, he has no right to continue at Tumkur. Further, learned counsel would submit that transfer of petitioner is effected only on approval of Chief Minister. When the approval of Chief Minister is obtained, no reasons need be recorded. Thus, learned counsel would pray for passing appropriate order. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers as well as the original file relating to the impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024, the only point which would arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether the 9 impugned O.M. is legally sustainable and whether warrants interference? 9. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the impugned order of transfer requires interference for the following reasons: The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 belong to the cadre of Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent- BESCOM. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have completed their tenure of two years at Tumkur and Ramanagar, respectively. On completion of the period of tenure, no employee of the respondent-Board has a right to continue. However, in terms of Transfer Guidelines under Government Order dated 25.06.2024 which is adopted by respondent Nos.1 to 3, under order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure-D), if the transfer is to be effected after General Transfer period, prior approval of the Chief Minister shall be necessary. As noticed, the General Transfer period was up to 10 31.07.2024 and the present transfer under O.M. dated 30.12.2024 is beyond the period of General Transfers. As such, O.M. dated 30.12.2024 transferring the petitioner and posting respondent No.4 required approval of Chief Minister. 10. On perusal of the original file relating to the impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024, it is seen that the proposal has not emanated from the Department, but the proposal of transfer has emanated from the note of the Chief Minister. Note of the Chief Minister to effect transfer cannot be considered as approval of transfer. The approval of transfer could be a valid approval, only when the proposal for transfer emanates from the Department and when the proposal emanated from the Department is placed before the Chief Minister for approval. In the instant case, the record reveals that the proposal for transfer is not approved by the Chief Minister, but approved by the concerned Minister 11 on 06.01.2025, that too, after the transfer O.M. dated 30.12.2024. No post-facto approval is recognized under the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, but it requires prior approval of Chief Minister which is absent in the present case. 11. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.19087/2022 disposed of on 21.10.2022 has observed that for premature transfer and transfer effected subsequent to the period of General Transfers, prior approval of Chief Minister would be mandatory. It is also to be noticed that the present Transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024 is in supercession of earlier Transfer Guidelines under Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The Government Order dated 07.06.2013 which had laid down guidelines for transfer was the subject matter of Full Bench in S.N.GANGADHARAIAH v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND AOTHER reported in ILR 2015 KAR 12 1955 wherein it is held that the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 is having statutory force and could be enforced. 12. The other ground urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in Shree Siddartha Institute of Technology, Tumkur and that his son is studying at Tumkur are all matters to be considered by respondent-authorities, if the petitioner makes representation in that regard. For the present, taking note of the fact that, for effecting transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.4 under O.M. dated 30.12.2024 beyond General Transfer period, prior approval of Chief Minister is not obtained, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. 13 (ii) The impugned O.M. dated 30.12.2024 bearing No. PÀ«¥À椤/¥ÀæªÀå(¹)/ªÀå(D)/(©100)/6/2024 dated 30.12.2024 is quashed. Since the petitioner has completed his tenure of two years at Tumkur, it is open for the respondents- Authorities to transfer the petitioner out of Tumkur in the next General Transfer period or if the administrative exigencies require immediate transfer of petitioner, it could be effected by strictly following Government Order dated 25.06.2024. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms