- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9352 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. REVANNA B N S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT ROOM NO.440, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-1 SECTION KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU. 2. SHRI. REVANNA B.N. S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT ROOM NO.440, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-I SECTION KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU. 3. SHRI REVANNA B.N. S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 ROOM NO.440, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-I SECTION KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (ADMN.I), VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. SHRI NAGARAJA T S/O LATE SRI THIMMARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SENIOR ASSISTANT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ON TRANSFER NOW SUBMITTED DUTY REPORT IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADV. FOR R3 (NOC))) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIES; 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.427/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR; 2. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.116/2025 AND A.NO.252/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN AND 3. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER. 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a Senior Assistant working in the Karnataka Government Secretariat in Urban Development Department is before this Court, questioning the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal allowing the applications filed by respondent No.3 in Application No.116/2025, Application No.252/2025 and rejecting Application No.427/2025 filed by the petitioner, whereunder, the petitioner is given posting from one table to another table in the same office. 2. It is unfortunate that government servants are litigating even on change of table within the same office. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat for Sri.Vijaya Kumar Bajentri for petitioner, learned AGA Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Application No.116/2025 was filed by respondent No.3 with a prayer to direct the official-respondent to give effect to Movement Order vide O.M. dated 09.01.2025 by permitting the applicant to discharge duty of the post of Senior Assistant, Urban Development Department. Application No.252/2025 was also filed by respondent No.3 with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 whereunder O.M. dated 08.01.2025 posting respondent No.3 to Urban Development Department and posting the petitioner to Forest Department as Senior Assistants is cancelled, whereas Application No.427/2025 is filed by the petitioner, questioning the O.M. dated 08.01.2025 whereunder the petitioner was posted to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 Forest Department and respondent No.3 was posted to Urban Development Department. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Bhagawat would submit that the order dated 20.01.2025 was rightly passed canceling the O.M. dated 08.01.2025. He would submit that O.M. dated 08.01.2025 insofar as the petitioner and respondent No.3 was not implemented and hence rightly, it was cancelled under order dated 20.01.2025. Respondent No.3 had reported before the first respondent and his duty report was never accepted. Therefore, learned senior counsel would submit that the Tribunal fell into error in coming to the conclusion that respondent No.3 has already reported to duty and duty report was accepted. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the Chief Minister ordered for continuation of the petitioner at Urban Development Department, as such, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh would submit that in pursuance of the O.M. dated 08.01.2025, posting of respondent No.3 to Urban Development Department in pursuance of the Movement Order dated 09.01.2025, he reported to duty at Urban Development Department and his duty report was accepted. Thus, he submits that O.M. dated 08.01.2025 was not available for cancellation as on 20.01.2025. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order dated 20.01.2025. Further, learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh would submit that the petitioner is working in the Secretariat of Urban Development Department from March 2007. Referring to Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 submits that insofar as Secretariat employees are concerned, the tenure is to be determined taking note of their stay in a department and not the post unlike other government servants. Thus, he submits that the petitioner has already completed his minimum period of stay in the Urban - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 Development Department. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference. 8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: It is unfortunate that the petitioner and respondent No.3 who are working as Senior Assistant in the Karnataka Government Secretariat are before this Court, litigating for change of table within the Government Secretariat by transferring and posting of petitioner and respondent No.3. Their service condition is not affected nor they are put into any hardship or inconvenience. The tenure of the Secretariat employees in terms of Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024 read with Government Order dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 07.06.2013 shall be determined, taking note of their stay in a department unlike the post for other government servants. In the instant case, the petitioner is working in the department of Urban Development Department from 2007 onwards and he is working there for more than 15 years. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue in the Urban Development Department. Moreover, no person can claim to continue in a particular post and it is for the Employer to post its employees to any post and extract work from them. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 08.01.2025 whereunder the petitioner was posted to Forest, Ecology and Environment Department and respondent No.3 is posted to Urban Development Department, respondent No.3 reported to duty on 09.01.2025 in pursuance of Movement Order issued on 09.01.2025 (Annexure-A6). The petitioner reported to duty and his duty report is accepted. Thus, the order of posting in terms of O.M. dated 08.01.2025 was implemented on 09.01.2025. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27101-DB WP No. 9352 of 2025 Hence, O.M. dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-A5) was not available for cancellation as on 20.01.2025 (Annexure- A9). Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that when the order dated 08.01.2025 has been implemented and after its implementation, the subsequent cancellation order has been issued on 20.01.2025 without taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 was relieved from his earlier post and reported to duty at the transferred place, after due approval of the second respondent. There is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal under challenge. 10. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK/CT:bms