- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.101561 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SRI B. NARAYAN, S/O SRI BOLADEVADIGA, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, R/O C/O D.V. GUJJAR, VIDYANAGAR, DIST. HAVERI 581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTH KARNATAKA REGION, DIST. DHARWAD 580001. 3. MANJUNATH G. HUBBALLI SRM, RMS, ‘HB’ DIVISION, HUBBALLI 580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED 17-02-2025 (UPLOADED ON 24-02-2025) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00612/2024 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC., ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The Superintendent of Post Office is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Original Application No.170/00612/2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the petitioner’s application challenging his transfer from Haveri Division to Yadgiri Division, under the order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-A3) is rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel, Sri. Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in dismissing petitioner’s application challenging his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 transfer from Haveri Division to Yadgiri Division. Learned counsel would submit that under Office Memorandum, dated 20.02.2024 (Anneuxre-A5), issued by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, all Group ‘B’ Officers of Postal Department are provided with minimum of three years tenure. He submits that the petitioner was posted to Haveri Division, Haveri, on 05.12.2022 and he assumed charge of the said post on 26.12.2022. The petitioner has completed only two years at Haveri and under the impugned order dated 21.10.2024, the petitioner is transferred from Haveri Division to Yadgiri Division. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is discriminated in the matter of transfer. He states that there are seniors to him and without considering the seniors for being transferred, the petitioner is taken out from Haveri Division and posted to Yadgiri Division. Learned counsel would submit that the transfer would put the petitioner to hardship and transfer, at this stage, would prejudice him. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the spouse of the petitioner is working as Assistant Administrative Officer, District AYUSH Office, Haveri, and therefore, he submits that the petitioner ought to have been continued at Haveri. Learned counsel would - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the transfer of the petitioner is in contravention of the transfer guidelines issued under Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2024. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned order of transfer dated 21.10.2024. 4. Per contra, Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned CGSC for the postal authorities would submit that the petitioner was posted to Haveri Division at his request. He submits that in terms of Clause ‘E’ of the transfer guidelines issued under Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2024, where a person is posted at a particular place at his request, his tenure would be two years. He submits that since the petitioner had completed two years of minimum tenure at the place of his request posting i.e., at Haveri, the petitioner was picked up for assigning higher responsibility and was posted to Yadgiri Division. He invites our attention to paragraph 17 of the order of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has observed that the Transfer and Placement Committee in its meeting has found that the petitioner, among others, was suitable to hold the post at Yadgiri Division and hence, taking note of his vast working experience in various - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 postal division, the petitioner was posted to work at Yadgiri Division. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is, whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference. 6. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The petitioner is working as Superintendent of Posts in the Postal Department, Karnataka Region. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted to the present place at Haveri Division at his request. On his request transfer, the petitioner took charge of the post at Haveri on 20.12.2022. The Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, under its Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2024, has issued certain guidelines for posting and transfer of Group ‘B’ Officers of the Postal Department, and Clause E of the said guidelines reads as follows: “E. Request Transfers Officers may submit transfer requests through proper channel, only after serving for two years at the present place of posting. Two years shall be counted from the date of joining. The transfer applications may be entertained - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 only in exceptional medical cases, if preferred before completion of the prescribed two years.” A reading of the above would make it abundantly clear that, wherever request transfer is effected, the tenure of such a person would be two years from the date of joining the said post. In the instant case, the petitioner, who was posted to Haveri Division at his request has completed his tenure at that place on 26.12.2024. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner from Haveri Division to Yadgiri Division is premature fails and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is discriminated in the matter of transfer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said contention would not assist the petitioner. The impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that the respondent-Postal Authorities needed a suitable person at Yadgiri Division to find out lapses on the part of the Divisional Administration, maintenance of basic records, monitoring of investigation, business development and other aspects. Taking note of the petitioner’s vast working experience in various postal divisions and in various capacities, the Transfer and Placement Committee found him suitable and posted him to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4872-DB WP No. 101561 of 2025 Yadgiri Division. Therefore, when the petitioner is posted to Yadgiri Division in the exigencies of administration, normally, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere. When the petitioner is posted to Yadgiri Division in the exigencies of administration and looking into his experience the ground that spouse is working at Haveri pales into insignificance. 8. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Pending I.As, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35