1 Reserved on : 20.01.2025 Pronounced on :20.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.104632 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI MALLIKARJUN GOUDA G.N , S/O G. NARAYANA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) OFFICE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION. GESCOM BALLARI, R/O: D.NO. 522 D1, BEHIND VASAVI SCHOOL, INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI – 583 104. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD, CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002. 2. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND R Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 2 HUMAN RESOURCE), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD, CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002. 3. SRI SRINIVAS PRASAD K., AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) H.T. RATING SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM, RAICHUR, DISTRICT – 5841 01. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI C.S.PATIL AND SRI RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATES FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.KPTCL/DGMP/MES1/B58/50/2024, DATED 30-07-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, DOCUMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER (SL.NO.6) IS CONCERN, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an Official Memorandum dated 30-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, insofar as it pertains to transfer of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajashekar R.Gunjalli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner joins the services of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as ‘the Corporation’ for short) as an Assistant Engineer and was posted to work at Moka Sub-Station, Ballari. At the relevant point in time, he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. On 03-07-2023, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Office Construction and Maintenance Division, GESCOM, Ballari. On 12-06-2024, the Corporation bifurcated GESCOM, Bellari by an Official Memorandum 4 creating a new O & M Sub-Division at Kampli. The post that the petitioner was holding was transferred to Kampli, a newly formed Sub-Division. Based upon the said bifurcation of O & M Division, the petitioner was transferred by the impugned order and was directed to report at Hagaribommanahalli. Contending that this is contrary to the operating guidelines, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 05-08-2024, granted an interim order of stay of the impugned Official Memorandum, which is in subsistence even today. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath would contend that the petitioner was transferred and posted to O & M Ballari Sub-Division. That is bifurcated into two new Operation and Maintenance Sub-Divisions – one goes to Hagaribommanahalli and the other goes to Kampli. The petitioner was initially shifted to Kampli and was immediately transferred to report for duties at Hagaribommanahalli. The petitioner being a Group-B officer is entitled to stay at a transferred place for a period of two years. This being a fresh order of transfer 5 which is on 03-07-2023 to Ballari, merely because it is division of a sub-division, it would not give power to the Corporation to violate the guidelines. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation Sri B.S. Kamate would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that directing the petitioner to report for duties cannot be termed to be a transfer. It was due to the organizational restructuring the deployment has come about. The petitioner was posted at Ballari, but the Ballari Sub-Division is divided. Therefore, Ballari Sub-Division which was divided into two – one at Kampli and the other at Hagaribommanahalli, the petitioner was directed to resume charge at the said post by the impugned order. Therefore, reporting at Hagaribommanahalli becomes his first place of posting pursuant to bifurcation. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the Corporation. 6. The learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent Sri Rajashekar R. Gunjalli would take this Court through the statement of objections to contend that the petitioner is from Ballari. It is his native place and has been in the said native place 6 for the last 20 years in one post or the other of GESCOM. He would otherwise toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the Corporation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue by taking this Court through the chart that he has drawn in the averments to contend that the petitioner has no doubt worked for majority of his career in Ballari, but has been to Raichur on two occasions and he is in different offices in Ballari and has not worked in the same place in 20 years. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The transfer, is trite an incidence of service. The power of transferring an employee by the employer on exigencies of administration or otherwise is a power that is all times available, but such power will have to be exercised in terms of the statute, operative guidelines or circulars which govern and regulate transfer of employees in the State Government or the Corporation as the 7 case would be. In the case at hand, it is the operative guidelines that govern and regulate transfer of employees in the Corporation and in ESCOMS. The operative guidelines are not independently made by the Corporation but they are adopted mutatis mutandis as and when the State Government would notify guidelines for its employees. The guidelines dated 22-11-2001 was holding the field which is now replaced by guidelines dated 07-06-2013. Two of the guidelines in the guidelines dated 07-06-2013 assume significance. They are Clause-8 and Clause-9 of the guidelines. They read as follows: “…. …. …. …. 8. Mininum period of stay at a place:- No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred/ deputed if he has not completed his tenure of posting in a place, as indicated below:- No. Cadre Number of years 1. 2. 3. 1. All Group – A posts 2. All Group – B posts 3 years 3. All Group – C posts 4 years 4. All Group – D posts 7 years The minimum period of stay for a particular post may be prescribed / revised from time to time by an order by the Administrative Departments of the Secretariat, with the prior approval of the Chief Minster, in respect of certain types of 8 sensitive cadres in the departments coming under their administrative control, depending upon the nature of duties assigned to the post. 9. Premature/delayed Transfer a. Generally there should be no premature transfers. The tenure of posting of a Government servant may be extended or reduced by the Competent Authority in the following cases after recording the reasons for the same in writing. The minimum period of stay at a place as prescribed in para 8 can be reduced and the concerned Government servant transferred prematurely if the competent authority feels that he or she is not suitable for discharging the duties at the present place and the reasons are recorded to this effect in writing:- (i) The employee due for transfer after completion of tenure at a place or posting or post has less than two years of service for retirement: (ii) The employee possesses special technical qualifications or experience for the particular job for which a suitable replacement is not immediately available: (iii) The employees working on a project or Flagship programmes of Government of India which are in the crucial stage of implementation and his withdrawal will seriously jeopardize timely completion of such projects: (iv) Where both the spouses are Government servants and if one of the spouses is transferred. then the other spouse may also be transferred to the same place or nearby place depending upon the availability of vacancy even if one of them has not completed the minimum period of stay: (v) Where a female Government servant is a widow / spinster/unmarried divorcee, she may be transferred 9 and in case she is appointed for the first time, may be posted to a place of her choice subject to availability of vacancy: (vi) Where a Government servant is an office-bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association only, such Government servant shall not be transferred until the completion of the term for which he has been elected. In case no elections are held within three months of the completion of the said term, he may be transferred. In case he is reelected, he may be continued in the same place until the completion of the second term only. (vii) Where a Government servant is physically handicapped / challenged or disabled subject to certification by the Medical Board: (viii) Where a Government servant or his / her spouse or children are suffering from serious or terminal ailments, depending upon the availability of the facility of medical treatment at the requested place subject to certification by the Medical Board: b. However, before effecting any premature transfers and for making any transfer after the transfer period, and also for extending the tenure of a Government servant for the reasons stated above, prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister must be obtained without fail by the concerned Administrative Department of the Secretariat. The Principal Secretaries / Secretaries to Government should not under any circumstances issue transfer orders and later seek ratification/ post facto approval of the Chief Minister.” Clause-8 of the guidelines indicates the period of stay after transfer of an Officer of different groups. Groups- A and B would have a minimum tenure of two years from the date of assumption of 10 charge in a place of posting. It can vary in terms of Clause-9 which has several conditions of such variance one of which is reasons to be recorded in writing. The guidelines of 22-11-2001 are held to have a statutory force by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in CHANDRU H.N. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2011 (3) Kant LJ 562. The full Bench holds that the guidelines regulating transfer of employees in the State have a statutory force. The issue again arose before a Full Bench with regard to whether shifting of one person from one place to another within the same headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise under the guidelines. Another Full Bench in the case of S.N. GANGADHARAIAH K.A.S., v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has held as follows:- “…. …. …. 20. In the result and for the foregoing, we answer the question referred for consideration of the Full Bench as under: a) The Rules relating to transfer contained in the KCSRs and the definition of the term ‘transfer’ contained in Rule 8(49) of KCSR have no application for regulating transfer of Government servants as provided in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. 1 ILR 2015 Kar 1955 11 b) Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. Ramachandra v. State of Karnatakarendered in W.P. No. 56164/2013 disposed of on 05.12.2013 does not lay down correct law, nor does it consider the decision of the Full Bench in the case of H.N. Chandru v. State of Karnataka (supra) which was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. c) Consequently, we hold that posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of Clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The Registry is directed to place the papers of this Writ Petition before the appropriate Division Bench for passing further or final orders.” (Emphasis supplied) In terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in GANGADHARAIAH’s case, even movement from one place to another within the same headquarters would amount to transfer. This had held the field. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHEKHRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 holds as follows: “….. ….. …. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced on all sides, we notice that it is an admitted case that respondent 2 W.P.No.4969 of 2024 decided on 20th June 2024 12 No.3 had been working in the same office continuously from the past more than 15 years. No Government servant can contend that he is immune from transfer, which is only an incident of service. The transfer guidelines are intended to prevent political interference or harassment in matters of transfer and not to assure that any Government servant continues in the same seat or office continuously. The protection against premature transfer would be available in cases where a transfer is effected in a malafide fashion or as a measure of harassment or to the great inconvenience or prejudice of the officer involved, without even waiting for the normal tenure to be completed in the same office. However, in the instant case, where the facts disclose that respondent No.3 had been working in the same office for an inordinately long time and since the transfer is admittedly only from one circle to another i.e., without causing any inconvenience whatsoever to respondent No.3, we are of the opinion that the reasons stated by the Tribunal for having interfered with the order of transfer that it was a premature transfer would not be available in the instant case. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rendered in similar circumstances where cases of transfer to seats in the same building or to nearby offices have been considered and this Court has held that in cases where no inconvenience whatsoever results, an order of transfer simpliciter need not be set aside only on the technical ground on non compliance with the guidelines. 7. We are inclined to accept the contention that in a case of this nature, clause 9 of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 would have no application and that the Government servant has no vested right to contend that he is entitled to work only in a specified post in an office. We make it clear that this judgment is being rendered in the facts and circumstances of the instant case alone. The decisions with regard to posting from one seat to another in the same office also being treated as premature transfer are applicable in cases where the incumbent is transferred out as a measure of harassment or to being in a person of choice to the seat in question. It is not in every case of such premature transfer that the decision would be applicable. 13 8. In the instant case, in the absence of any pleading or material as to malafide intentions, harassment or even inconveniences, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench did not interfere with the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which had rejected the claim of an employee holding that the Government servant has no vested right to contend that he is entitled to work only in a specified post in an office. There the employee had worked for 15 years in the same office. The very same Bench in another judgment in S.SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA3 holds as follows: “…. …. …. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent would contend that the petitioner also was a person, who has been working in Bengaluru itself. It is further contended that mere approval of the Chief Minister is not sufficient for making a premature transfer, but reasons for such transfer have to be specifically recorded which was absolute in the present case. It is submitted that since the order of transfer was one passed without any reason whatsoever, the finding of the Tribunal was well justified. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that what was under challenge before the Tribunal was an order of transfer of the fourth respondent from Circle No.15 to Circle No.29 within the same office in the place of the writ petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the fourth 3 W.P.No.17591 of 2024 decided on 26th July 2024 14 respondent had been continuing in Bengaluru itself since 2011. There were no allegations of malafide or harassment involved in the transfer. 9. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of transfer on the ground that it was a premature transfer and that the administrative reasons for such transfer were not specifically mentioned. 10. In the special facts and circumstances of the instant case, where officers were moved from one post to another within the same office with the prior permission of the Chief Minister, we are of the opinion that non-stating of specific administrative reason cannot be held to vitiate the order of transfer. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case, where the Tribunal should have quashed the order on the ground of violations of the guidelines relating to transfer.” The Division Bench again holds that merely because the Chief Minister has only signed and has not rendered specific administrative reason, it would not vitiate the order. The prayer of the employee is again declined. 11. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders, the issue of transfer again crops up before another Division Bench of this Court in K.S. SUDHAKARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4. The issue before the Division Bench was whether deployment from one office to another 4 W.A.No.1146 of 2024 decided on 3rd September, 2024. 15 in the same headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise. The Division Bench holds that even deployment from one office to another within the same headquarters in the urban area is also governed by the transfer guidelines. There the transfer was from head office in the post of Environmental Officer to the Regional Office at Sarjapura. This was defended by submitting that it was deployment and not transfer. Therefore, the Division Bench answering all the contentions has held as follows; “Analysis 11. The transfer of government servant is regulated through the guidelines framed by the State Government. Earlier, the transfer was guided by a Government Order dated 22.11.2001. The guidelines were framed for the transfer of government servants as per the recommendations of the Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission. 12. In order to provide minimum tenure of posting and to bring in more transparency and accountability, 2001 Transfer Guidelines were revised. In supersession of 2001 Transfer Guidelines, the revised guidelines were issued in a Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The preamble to Government Order dated 07.06.2013 reads as under, “ It is now found expedient to regulate the transfer of Government servants ensure their continuance in a post for a reasonable period so that they get real exposure the activities of the department and deliver the results/ outcomes as envisaged. Further, as per the recommendation of the Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission. It is aimed to bring in more transparency, accountability in administration. More over, for uniform distribution of Personnel throughout 16 the State for effective functioning of the Government, it is felt necessary to issue fresh general orders regulating the transfer of Government servants.” 13. The State Government revised guidelines under Government Order dated 25.06.2024 in supersession of Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 regulates the transfer of government servants from 2024 to 2025. The guidelines deal with 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. 14. The relevant Clauses are is extracted for immediate perusal, “2. Explanation:- In this order, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) ....... (2) “ Transfer” means posting of a Government servant from a post to take up duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or in a case where the office of a department /field department/ commissionarate/directorate, other office in an existing headquarters is changed and the office shifted to another headquarters. (3) “Deployment” means posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area. Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be considered as those of transfer. This also includes deployment of Government servants belonging to the Karnataka Government Secretariat Service from one department of the Secretariat to another department. 3. Process of transfers: Transfers/ deployment shall be made by the competent authority subject to the conditions stipulated in this order, mainly, in the interest of public service in a transparent manner. 6. Minimum period of stay at a place:- 17 (1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred / deployed if he has not completed period of service at a place as stipulated below:- Sl. No. Cadre Period of service (In years) (1) (2) (3) 1. All Group – A Posts 2 years 2. All Group – B Posts 2 years 3. All Group – C Posts 4 years 4. All Group – D Posts 7 years The administrative departments of the Secretariat may, in respect of a post in the departments under them, issue orders revising / prescribing, from time to time, with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the minimum period for which a Government servant may render service in such a post. (2) The Government servants, who have been appointed against various vacant posts in the local cadres and residuary cadres in the offices located in Hyderabad- Karnataka region shall not be transferred outside the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for a period of ten years from the date of their appointment. 7. Premature / Delayed Transfers: (1) The Minimum period of service which a Government servants may render at a place may be extended or reduced in the following circumstances:- (a) A Government servant, who has completed the maximum period of stay at a place and due for transfer, has less than two years of service for retirement. (b) A Government servant possesses special technical qualification or experience and no suitable 18 Government servant is immediately available for being appointed to such a specific post to replace him. (c) Where an employee is working in a Central Government Project or a flagship project, the implementation of which is at an important stage and withdrawal of his services is likely to seriously stall timely completion of that project. (d) Where both the spouses are Government servants and if one of the spouses is transferred, then the other spouse may also be transferred to the same place or nearby place, subject to availability of vacancy, even if one of them has not completed the minimum period of stay. (e) If a Government servant is an office-bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, he shall not be transferred until the completion of his term as that office-bearer. (f) If a Government servant or his / her spouse or children are suffering from serious or terminal ailments and the facility of medical treatment is available at a place and he produces a certificate in that regard issued by the Medical Board.” 15. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 deal with 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. The narrow dispute is whether the Transfer Guidelines 2024 apply in case of “deployment”. It is made clear that the analysis of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 in this order is only in relation to deployment. 16. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, the explanation to "Deployment" in English version is not true translation of Kannada version. According to the learned Advocate, true translation in the officially translated guidelines and as per the learned advocate is as follows, 19 As per Government Order As per learned advocate for the appellant Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be considered as those of transfer. This also includes deployment of Government servants belonging to the Karnataka Government Secretariat Service from one department of the Secretariat to another department. Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be considered as those of transfer. These Transfer Guidelines will not be applicable in cases of deployment. 17. The comprehensive reading of Transfer Guidelines 2024, it regulates the transfer of government servants even as “deployment”. It is difficult to accept that Transfer Guidelines 2024 ought not applicable to deployment. It is trite law that the Explanation cannot be used as a interpretation tool to understand the scope and ambit of the substantive law. If the Explanation is to be given preference to interpret the Transfer Guidelines 2024, it would act as an exception to the substantive law, which is not the scope of Explanation. The Explanation in no way explains the substantive law, however runs contrary to the substantive law. 18. Clause 6 of the guidelines provides for a minimum tenure of posting to a government servant at a place. The minimum period of tenure varies to different group of officers. This Court is concerned with Group-B Officers. The minimum period of tenure at a place for Group-B Officers is two years. 19. Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables premature/delayed transfers. In other words, Clause 7 would be an exception to Clause 6. Clause 7 empowers the government to extend or reduce the period of posting at a 20 place to the government servant, however, in the circumstances provided therein. 20. Respondent No.3 was transferred to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, as Environmental Officer under Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. As per Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent No.3 has the protection of a minimum posting period at a place for two years. There is no dispute that the appellant and respondent No.3 are Group-B Officers. It is not in dispute that no reasons have been recorded for premature transfer of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have neither placed any material nor contend that the premature transfer of respondent No.3 is in the circumstances contemplated under Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. It is the categorical statement of the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 that no reasons are being recorded. 21. The learned advocate for the appellant would submit that posting a government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters in an urban area is not a transfer and is deployment. He submits that as per the explanation in Kannada version, the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are made inapplicable to deployment. The transfer guidelines are not applicable in the present case. The submission of learned advocate for the appellant is appealable at the first blush. However, it is difficult to accept the contentions on examination of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 to the fullest extent. 22. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 provides a minimum period of tenure at a place to a government servant in case of transfer or deployment. The Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 refers to transfer of officers. The impugned office memorandum posting respondent No.3 from Regional Office to Head Office states "ordered to be transferred", "Details of Posting". The contention regarding the case of "Deployment" is untraceable. 21 23. As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, the transfer process, including the deployment, is mandated subject to conditions stipulated in the Transfer Guidelines 2024 and on consideration of the interest of public servants and in a transparent manner. Clause 3 mandates the applicability of transfer conditions in the case of deployment. 24. Even if the contention of the appellant that it is the case of deployment is tested having regard to the guidelines, as per Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent No.3 is entitled to a minimum tenure posting at a place for two years. Respondent No.3 was transferred as Environmental Officer to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, by Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. Further transfer under Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 would abbreviate the minimum posting period of two years and is nothing but premature transfer in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024. 25. Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables premature/delayed transfers. Clause 7 is an exception to Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. However, Clause 7 enables the government to extend or reduce the posting period to a government servant at a place subject to the circumstances stated therein. On a conjoint reading of Clauses 6 and 7, it is clear that the government servant is protected with a minimum period of tenure at a place, and the same can be reduced only under the circumstances provided under Clause 7. 26. Another aspect needs to be noticed and relevant is, the similar situation was provided in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. Clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 defines 'Transfer' and follows a Note to the definition of Transfer. The same reads as, “(d) ‘Transfer’ means the posting of a Government servant from one headquarters to another headquarters or from one office to another within the same headquarters to take up duties of a new post or in consequence of a change of headquarters; 22 Note:- Movement of a Government servant within the same office/ unit from one post to another one or desk/ compilation to another one under the same head office shall not be treated as transfer.” 27. The Note to definition of Transfer states that movement of government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another one, or desk/ compilation to another one under the same head office shall not to be treated as transfer. The scope of ‘Note’ falls for consideration before this Court. Full Bench of this Court, in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra), held that posting of a government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters to take up the duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer. 28. The contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that unless the transfer is in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the transfer and violation of transfer guidelines, which are administrative instructions/ guidelines, will not enable invoking writ jurisdiction, is not acceptable. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Abbas (supra), the Court can interfere in a transfer order when made in violation of statutory provisions. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.N. Chandru (supra), while dealing with 2001 Transfer Guidelines and the Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra) dealing with 2013 Transfer Guidelines held that the transfer guidelines a statutory force as it is issued to supplement the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) as regards the matter that is not provided under KCSRs. 29. In view of the decisions of the Full Bench, the Court can interfere with the transfer order of a government servant if found in violation of the guidelines governing such transfer. However, the interference in the transfer can only be on a case-to-case basis based on the facts. 23 30. The judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is based on peculiar facts. No principles of law have been laid down with reference to the transfer guidelines, especially in the light of the law laid down by the two Full Bench judgments of this Court. 31. The judgment in the case of Smt. H.S. Veena (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of this Court was in the peculiar facts involved therein. Similarly, the judgment in the case of S.Suresh (supra). Both judgments do not apply to the facts of the case. 32. The object of framing the transfer guidelines is extracted in the previous paragraphs from Transfer Guidelines 2013 in Government Order dated 07.06.2013. In the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated the necessity of minimum tenure of posting to a government servant. The same is as under, “35. We notice, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritise various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalised sections of the society.” 24 33. The necessity of minimum tenure to a government servant if tested in the light of preamble to 2013 Transfer Guidelines and principle held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian (supra) in the facts of the present case, the transfer of respondent No.3 is premature and in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024. The transfer of respondent No.3 by way of deployment would abbreviate the minimum tenure of respondent No.3 as protected under Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. Even if the case of the appellant is considered as deployment, the movement of respondent No.3 from the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to Head Office, Bengaluru, would run counter to the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and the object of Transfer Guidelines. 34. In view of above discussion there is no gainsaying, and it has to be concluded that the transfer guidelines which are statutory in nature, apply both whether the shifting of the employee is termed as transfer or deployment. In the instant case, there has been violation of minimum period prescription. The view held and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge deserves to be affirmed. 35. Learned Single Judge has held that as per Clause 3, the deployment shall be made by the competent authority subject to the conditions in the order (Transfer Policy 2024) on satisfying two tests i.e., (a) that it must be mainly in the interest of public service and (b) that it must be in a transparent manner. 36. Learned Single Judge has held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were unable to justify the decision to replace the petitioner in the Regional Office in the interest of public service or transparency. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the transfer of respondent No.3 is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 and quashed the transfer order dated 15.07.2024 insofar as respondent No.3 thereby continuing respondent No.3, as Environmental Officer at Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru. 37. In light of the above discussion, consideration of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, and applying judgments relied on 25 by the respective learned advocates for the parties, the following, Conclusion: (i) The posting of a government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area is governed by Transfer Guidelines 2024 in Government Order No.DPAR 33 STR 2024, Bengaluru, dated 25.06.2024. (ii) The government servant is protected with minimum tenure of posting under Clause 6 of Government Order dated 25.06.2024 in case of deployment. (iii) The Explanation to definition “Deployment” would not override the substantive procedure mandated under Transfer Guidelines 2024. (iv) The reduction of minimum tenure posting of government servant shall be in the circumstances under Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. (v) The posting of respondent No.3 from Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru to Head Office, Bengaluru is against minimum tenure of posting. Hence, premature. (vi) This Court cannot find any error in the order of leaned Single Judge which warrants interference.” (Emphasis supplied) The entire spectrum of law is analysed by the Division Bench. 26 12. The issue now would be, two of the Division Benches would hold that an employee who work in the same office for a longer time cannot project himself to be immune from transfer. In another case the Division Bench earlier holds that non-stating of reasons by the Chief Minister would not vitiate the transfer. The subsequent order passed by the Division Bench in its conclusion holds that movement from one office to another in the same headquarters would also amount to transfer. The judgments rendered in the cases of SHEKHRAPPA and SURESH would not become applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of SHEKHRAPPA, the employee therein was working in the same office for 15 years and in the case of SURESH it was whether the Chief Minister should render reasons while signing the orders of transfer. Therefore, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are different from what the Division Bench in both the aforesaid orders notice. What is applicable is the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA, which considers this very issue as to whether transfer from one office to another in the same headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise. 27 13. The trail would go this way. The first Full Bench in the case of H.N. CHANDRU holds that guidelines have a statutory force. Therefore, the guidelines will always have a flavour of statute. The second Full Bench in the case of S.N. GANGADHARAIAH holds that movement from one place to another is also a transfer. The dictum of subsequent Full Bench holds the field. The Division Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA follows the Full Bench in the case of S.N. GANGADHARAIAH supra. An ancillary issue was projected before the Division Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA. This was on the score that Government has changed the norm slightly and has used the word deployment in the order issued on 25-06- 2024. This is adopted by the Corporation on 01-07-2024. The order adopting Government’s amendment by the Corporation reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¥Àæ¸ÀgÀt ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¤ ¸ÀASÉå (¹.L.J£ï): AiÀÄÄ40109PÉJ1999J¸ïf¹025521 PÀA¥À¤ C¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀbÉÃj: ¤UÀªÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, PÁªÉÃj ¨sÀªÀ£À, PÉ.f gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 560 009. N¢zÉ: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE22¸Éã˪À 2013 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.06.2013 2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE33¸Éã˪À 2024 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024 ¦ÃpPÉ: DqÀ½vÀzÀ°è£À £ÀÆvÀ£À ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁå¥ÀPÀªÁV ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£É ªÀiÁr, ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.06.2013gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è 28 ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024 gÀ°è ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2024-25 £Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ°è C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DzÉñÀ. ¤UÀªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ«¥À椤/©5J/J¸ïJ3/5474/97-98/II ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.07.2024 2024-25£Éà ¸Á°£À°è C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå ¹D¸ÀÄE 33 ¸Éã˪À 2024 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024 gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀªÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀĪÀÅ C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆArzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆ¢UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F DzÉñÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸À»/- ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁ.¸ÀA), PÀ.«.¥Àæ.¤.¤.” Therefore, whether it is transfer or deployment, the guidelines of 07-06-2013 which are adopted by the Corporation would undoubtedly become applicable and applicability will have to be decided qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand. 14. The petitioner is working in different regions of Ballari Taluk of GESCOM’s office for the last 20 years barring a few years in Raichur. He was posted on 10-07-2023 to Ballari O & M. He assumes charge on the same day. On 08-02-2024 GESCOM creates the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, O & M Division at Kampli. Pursuant to the notification comes another order on 12-06-2024 29 implementing the said creation. On 30-07-2024 comes the impugned Official memorandum. The Official memorandum insofar as it concerns the parties to the lis reads as follows: “.... .... .... 2024-25 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR – 1 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼À C£ÀéAiÀÄ PɼÀUÉ w½¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï(«) gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁzÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. PÀæ. ¸ÀA. C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ/PÀbÉÃj ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀbÉÃj µÀgÁ .... ..... ..... 4. PÉ.ºÀjPÀȵÀÚ 16604 110 PÉ« «zÀÄåvï G¥À PÉÃAzÀæ nJ¯ï & J¸ï J¸ï «¨sÁUÀ, PÀ«¥À椤 AiÀiÁzÀVj J¯ï.n.gÉÃnAUï £ÀUÀgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, §¼Áîj ²æà gÁeÉÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ 5. ²æäªÁ¸ï ¥Áæ¸Ázï PÉ. 14549 ºÉZï.n.gÉÃnAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, PÀA¦è ²æà ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï UËqÀ f J£ï gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ 6. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï UËqÀ f. J£ï, ¦£ï:14261 PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, PÀA¦è J¯ï.n.gÉÃnAUï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, ¨É¸ÁÌA, ºÀUÀj¨ÉƪÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î ²æÃ.KPÁAvÀ gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀQÌ” The 3rd respondent is posted to the place of the petitioner at Kampli and the petitioner is posted to Hagaribomannahalli. The defence of the Corporation is that it is the result of a bifurcation or creation of two O & M Sub-Divisions. The petitioner was working at Ballari. It is divided into two – one at Kampli and the other at Hagaribomannahalli. The petitioner was initially posted to Ballari 30 and the post was also transferred to Kampli. The petitioner assumes charge at Ballari on 10-07-2023. In terms of the operative guidelines, he is entitled to continue in the said post for a period of two years. It would have been a circumstance altogether different if the post was not shifted to Kampli. The post is shifted along with the petitioner, after which the petitioner could not have been shifted from the said place. It is not deployment but transfer. Therefore, it is hit by the operative guidelines of such transfer, as held by the Division Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA. In the light of the aforesaid law as declared in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA, the petition deserves to succeed. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Official memorandum dated 30-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent stands quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioner. 31 (ii) The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner at Kampli upto 29-07-2025, only if he does not incur any other ineligibility. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed. __________sd/-____________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA Bkp CT:ASC