- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27253 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. A.N. BAIRAPPA S/O NANJAIAH L AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AT ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106, R/O. 194, 2ND CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK S REDDY, SR. ADV. FOR SRI MANJUNATHA P. V., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 050. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 3. SRI. MANJUNATH K S/O KRISHNAPPA N UNDER THE ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOTE (D)-587 201. R/AT NO. 08, SAMRUDDI NILAYA, TALI ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI P.S RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR SRI T M CHOWDAREDDY, ADV. FOR C/R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3042/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21.08.2025 in Application No.3042/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), by which, application of 3rd respondent, questioning the order of transfer and posting dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 30.06.2025 is quashed, with an observation that the applicant therein who is 3rd respondent herein is entitled to continue till his transfer is necessitated in accordance with law. 2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Vivek S. Reddy for Sri.P.V.Manjunath for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for learned counsel Sri.T.M.Chowdareddy for respondent No.3/caveator. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned senior counsel Sri.Vivek Subbareddy would submit that the petitioner who was working at Kanakapura was transferred to Chikkamagaluru under Memorandum dated 03.02.2025, thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Chikkamagaluru to Anekal as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat under notification dated 30.06.2025. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner is said to have taken charge on 03.07.2025. The notification of posting the petitioner and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 transfer of 3rd respondent from Anekal was the subject matter of Application No.3042/2025. Respondent No.3 who was applicant before the Tribunal among other grounds, contended that he is a regular holder of the post of Executive Officer whereas the petitioner herein was the holder of post under Rule 32 of KCSRs. Accepting the said contention, the Tribunal allowed the application of 3rd respondent and quashed the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, posting the petitioner as Executive Officer to Anekal and transferring the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayt, Badami. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner who was respondent No.3 before the Tribunal is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Vivek Subbareddy would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in quashing the notification dated 30.06.2025 only on the ground that the petitioner is the holder of the post of Executive Officer under Rule 32 of KCSRs, whereas - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 respondent No.3 herein is the regular holder of the post. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the said finding of the Tribunal is opposed to the decision of the co- ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.212920/2020 disposed of on 28.02.2020. Learned senior counsel would submit that if an Officer has completed his tenure, such Officer cannot have any grievance with regard to an officer under Rule 32 of KCSRs replacing such Officer. Learned senior counsel would also submit that in view of the above decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the order of transfer. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner was working outside Bangalore all along and for the first time, the petitioner is posted to Bangalore Urban District i.e., Anekal. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent is always in and around Bangalore and therefore, the State- first respondent rightly transferred 3rd respondent to Badami. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that apart from the ground of posting a Rule 32 Officer, 3rd respondent had urged several other grounds. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are holders of Group-A Junior Scale Officers post and two years tenure is provided to their posting. Learned senior counsel would submit that as on the date of notification of transfer and posting of petitioner to the place of 3rd respondent, respondent No.3 had not completed his tenure of 2 years. Further learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner was posted to Chikkamagaluru on 03.02.2025 and within a span of 4 months, he got posting to Anekal in place of respondent No.3. It is submitted that the Government issued notification dated 30.06.2025, posting the petitioner in the place of 3rd respondent only to provide the petitioner place of his choice. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that a Rule 32 Officer to give way to the regular holder of the post is justified? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in quashing the transfer notification dated 30.06.2025 insofar as petitioner and respondent No.3 are concerned? 7. Answer to the above points would be in the negative and in the affirmative respectively, for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are holders of the post of Group-A Junior Scale. However, respondent No.3 is a regular/substantive holder of the post of Executive Officer whereas the petitioner is the holder of Executive Post under Rule 32 of KCSRs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 The Tribunal placing reliance on its own earlier decision in Smt.Saroja Patil V/S State of Karnatka and others in Application No.3900/2024 dated 19.09.2024 held that a person holding the post under Rule 32 of KCSRs could not be posted to a post of regular/substantive holder, unless the post is vacant. Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal being a holder of post under Rule 32 of KCSRs has to give way to the regular holder. The said finding is erroneous and opposed to the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court. Earlier, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in K.Raghurama Shetty V/S State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.14393/2012 disposed of on 07.06.2012 as well as in Sri.Bhoja Raj V/S Homabalaiah and others in W.P.No.17097/2012 disposed of on 05.09.2012 held that an Officer under Rule 32 of KCSRs cannot replace a regular holder of the post. However, in a subsequent decision in B.Madesh V/S State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.44916/2014 in which, Raghurama Shetty and Sri.Bhoja Raja (supra) were. Thereafter in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 Ram Singh V/S State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.212920/2020 disposed of on 28.02.2020, wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that, on completion of 2 years, a regular holder of the post cannot have any grievance with regard to an Officer under Rule 32 of KCSRs replacing him. It is also observed that, once an Officer completes his tenure, unless, the said person who replaces him is ineligible to hold the post under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, it is only then, notwithstanding completion of tenure the person holding the post could have any grievance. 8. In the light of the above, the finding of the Tribunal that a person holding the post under Rule 32 of KCSRs cannot replace the regular holder of the post is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the said finding is set aside. 9. Respondent No.3 herein is the applicant before the Tribunal and he was posted to work as Executive Officer, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 Taluk Panchayat, Anekal on 02.09.2023. The 3rd respondent had tenure of 2 years at Anekal, which he had completed on 01.09.2025. As on the date of issuing the impugned notification of transfer and posting, the transfer of respondent No.3 was premature. Notification dated 30.06.2025 would not indicate any reason except stating that it is in public interest and in the interest of administrative exigency. This Court has already held that for premature transfer, the Competent Authority shall record reasons which ought to be more than the common words “in the interest of Public and Administrative Exigencies”. In the above circumstances, the order quashing the notification dated 30.06.2025 would not require interference by this Court, 10. However, it is made clear that since respondent No.3 herein who was the applicant before the Tribunal has completed his tenure of 2 years as on this date, if in the administrative exigency transfer of respondent No.3 is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36974-DB WP No. 27253 of 2025 necessitated, it is open for the respondent-authorities to transfer respondent No.3, in accordance with law. 11. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36