- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44427-DB WP No. 30115 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 30115 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. SWEEKRUTHI H J W/O VARADARAJ KR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., (KSBCL) DEPOT, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL-562 110, R/AT NO.14, SRIDEVI KESHAVA KUTTERA, NEAR BGS MCH HOSPITAL, NELAMANGALA-562 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 08022252078, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44427-DB WP No. 30115 of 2025 PRS-FD@KARNATAKA.GOV.IN. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC-A BUILDING, BBMTC - SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. ARUNA G.R., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A8 DATED 24.07.2025 PRODUCED IN THE APPLICATION No.3465/2025 IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONDERNED IN Sl. No.127 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44427-DB WP No. 30115 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Application No. 3465 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise on 22.06.2015 and was posted at RMV Range, Bangalore. He was promoted as Inspector of Excise on 21.11.2020 at Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (KSBCL) Depot, Bangalore Rural District and has continued therein. 3. The State Government, vide Notification dated 14.05.2025, introduced a Rule called Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department and Official Transfer) Rules, 2025 and mandated transfer of Inspectors of Excise and the employees of the three other cadres of Excise Department through counselling. To implement the said Rules 2025, the respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44427-DB WP No. 30115 of 2025 No.1 has issued Guidelines bearing No.AaE 10 PES 2024, Bengaluru dated 08.07.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Clause 3 of the Guidelines 2025, posting locations have been classified in category A, B and C for awarding marks during counselling. The petitioner's case would fall in category-C and therefore he should have been allotted 5 marks as he is working as Inspector in KSBCL Depot. 5. We have considered the guidelines and the three criterias for giving the marks. 6. Admittedly, Devanahalli where the petitioner is posted as Excise Inspector in KSBCL Depot does not fall within the Bangalore Urban District. However, Devanalli houses the Bangalore Rural District Headquarters. If the petitioner's workplace is situated at the District Headquarters, he is entitled for 4 marks for him being posted as Inspector in KSBCL Depot, Devanahalli. Since the petitioner's case falls under Category 'B', he cannot claim that he is entitled to 5 marks in Category 'C', which should be allotted for posting locations. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44427-DB WP No. 30115 of 2025 From bare perusal of Category 'B', it is evident that if a workplace houses the District Headquarters, an employee would be entitled for 3 or 4 marks as per his designation and working position. 7. We, therefore, do not find any error committed by the competent authority in awarding 4 marks to the petitioner. The petitioner never objected to awarding of marks and in fact he has participated in the counselling. As he did not get the posting of his choice, he filed the application before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide impugned order. We do not find that there is any error committed by the Tribunal which requires this Court to interfere with in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. We, therefore, dismiss this petition with no order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50