- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 32030 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. RADHA L W/O DR. SURENDRA R AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR CASUALTY MEDICAL OFFICER (CMO) K C GENERAL HOSPITAL MALLESHWARAM BENGALURRU-560004 RESIDING AT NO. 25 DONATA COUNTRY KANSHIRAM NAGAR BENGALURU-560098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARASIMHARAJU.,ADVOCATE) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT K C GENERAL HOSPITAL MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVAREDDY., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT IN A.No-3183/2025 DATED 16.10.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN A.No- 3183/2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, while working as a 'Senior Casualty Medical Officer' at K C General Hospital, Malleswaram, Bengaluru, is transferred to the Government Hospital, Koratagere, Tumakuru District by the Official Memorandum dated 07.07.2025 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has called this decision in question with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal'] in the Application No.3183/2025. The Tribunal has granted interim order directing maintenance of status quo, and the petitioner has had the benefit of such order until the Tribunal's final order dated 16.10.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 2. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has opined that the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of the fact that her husband is posted in Bengaluru when she has completed substantial years of service in Greater Bengaluru, and the Tribunal has also opined that because the petitioner has participated in counselling and chosen a place of her choice, no exception can be taken with the second respondent's decision to post her to the Government Hospital, Koratagere, Tumakuru District. This Court has continued the status quo order, and as such, the petitioner has not reported to duty with the Government Hospital at Koratagere. 3. After hearing Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court by order dated 04.12.2025 has recorded the two fold submissions of Sri Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. These submissions are as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 "[i] indeed there are vacancies [in Bangalore] as asserted by the petitioner but cannot be extended the benefit of being posted to such vacancies is taken on record along the elaboration that under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Service [Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff] Rules, 2025 the petitioner, who is now transferred under this Rule, will not be entitled to claim 'exemption from transfer' and can only claim 'priority in transfer' and [ii] the petitioner is transferred in terms of Section 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Service [Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staffs (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 which stipulates that every Medical Officer who has completed prescribed number of years in Greater Bengaluru must be transferred but the vacancies within the Greater Bengaluru cannot be made available in counselling." Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, given the opportunity to respond, does not dispute that, because of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 Karnataka State Civil Service [Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff] Act, 2011 and the Karnataka State Civil Service [Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff] Ordinance, 2025, the petitioner cannot assert a right to seek exemption from transfer on the ground that her husband is working in Bengaluru or that she should be posted in Greater Bengaluru. 4. However, Sri Vivek Subba Reddy submits that this Court may pass just orders reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for posting outside the Greater Bengaluru Area, but at a closer distance than Koratagere provided vacancies within this area which is outside Greater Bengaluru are available. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner's request for a posting as aforesaid is in the light of the fact that she is fifty-seven and a half years old and she has a limited tenure of not over two and a half years. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 5. Sri Reuben Jacob submits that the authorities would definitely consider the petitioner's request if there are vacancies outside the Greater Bengaluru area but closer than Koratagere, and the learned Additional Advocate General also submits that it should also be open to the petitioner to point out the vacancy if there is any. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy submits that this Court may observe that the petitioner must not be called upon to answer in any disciplinary proceedings with the imputations of unauthorised absence when her representation is pending consideration. 6. These submissions are considered. If indeed there are vacancies outside the Greater Bengaluru and at a place closer than Koratagere, the petitioner must be at liberty to file a representation with the second respondent, who should consider the same at the earliest. Further, as the petitioner has had the benefit of status quo order until today and a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 representation would be under consideration, this Court is of the view that there should not be precipitation with the petitioner being called upon to show cause in any disciplinary proceedings on the ground that she has not reported to duty until this date or until the date of consideration of her representation. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the second respondent [within a week from today] for a posting outside the Greater Bengaluru area but closer than Koratagere. [b] The second respondent is called upon, if the petitioner avails this opportunity, to consider the same and communicate the decision at the earliest and in any event before 15.01.2026. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51619-DB WP No. 32030 of 2025 [c] The respondents shall not take any action on the ground that the petitioner has not reported to duty at Government Hospital, Koratagere, Tumakuru District as of now or until 20.01.2026. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall report to duty by 20.01.2026 based on the second respondent's decision. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-