- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH 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. 14851 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. B. DODDASANAGANNAVAR, S/O. BASAVANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD - 580001. RESIDING AT HOUSE No.6, SIRADI SAIBABA COLONY, UDAYANAGAR LAST CROSS, DHARWAD 580 001. PH: nO.9620960520 EMAIL IF: DYAMUSD@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, TTMC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK, BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION, DHARWAD 580 001. 4. SMT. BASAMMA BIRADARA, W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT, PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, YADAGIRI, YADAGIRI DISTRICT - 585 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.771/2025 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3–State, and Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.771/2025 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner is a Group-C employee of the second respondent–Department. By order dated 06.07.2021, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Dharwad. The post held by the petitioner is Group-C and, in terms of the Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024, is entitled to a minimum tenure of four years. By order dated 21.02.2025, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Joint Director (Audit and Accounts), Dharwad. Challenging the said order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 transfer, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, rejected the application, holding that when an employee is posted within the same headquarters, and the tenure is close to completion of four years, the order of transfer cannot be interfered with. 4. Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted in PWD, Dharwad, by order dated 06.07.2021 and is entitled to a tenure of four years. Learned counsel further submits that under the impugned order of transfer dated 21.02.2025, the petitioner has been transferred before the expiry of the four-year tenure, which is premature. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 has been appointed under the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and is required to serve in the region for a mandatory period of ten years. The transfer of respondent No.4 to replace the petitioner before the completion of ten years is therefore impermissible. 5. Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the transfer has been effected after the petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 completed more than three and a half years in the post, and that the posting is within the same city, accordingly, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 6. Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submits that although respondent No.4 has been appointed in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, the ten- year tenure in the region is not mandatory, and in view of administrative exigencies, transfer outside the Hyderabad- Karnataka Region is permissible. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dharwad, on 06.07.2021. It is not in dispute that the post held by the petitioner is a Group-C post and is entitled to a minimum tenure of four years. The only issue requiring consideration is whether the transfer under the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 can be held to be premature. It is noted that the transfer under the impugned order was effected before the expiry of four years, however, the petitioner had already served in the post for more than - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 three and a half years, and as on this date, the petitioner has completed four years of service. The transfer, being within the same city, has not caused any inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner has no vested right to continue in the same post, and a mere transfer a few months prior to the completion of the four-year tenure cannot be said to violate the Transfer Guidelines. Considering the overall tenure served by the petitioner as Assistant Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dharwad, it is clear that the petitioner has served a substantial period of more than three and a half years. In these circumstances, the order of transfer cannot be held to be in violation of the Transfer Guidelines, 2024. 8. The other contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No.4 was appointed under the quota reserved for the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and is required to serve ten years in the region, and that transfer before the expiry of ten years is impermissible, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. This contention is not available to the petitioner, since we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has almost completed the tenure. When government servant completes his tenure, he has no right to continue in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37393-DB WP No. 14851 of 2025 that post. Therefore, this contention is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. The Tribunal, having duly considered the aforesaid aspects, has rightly rejected the application. 9. We find no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, all pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4