- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST 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. 26103 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. SHYLAJA H R W/O T. KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS INSPECTOR OR EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RAGNE- 38 (J. P. NAGAR), BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT -6, BANGALORE -560070 RESIDING AT NO.418, 5TH MAIN, KENGERI, SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE- 560060, PH -9844534351 EMAIL ID. SHYLAJAHR12@GMAIL.COM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILIDNG, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE 560027. 3. SRI ERANNA M GENNURU, MAJOR, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RANGE-38 (J P NAGR), BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 6, BANGALORE -560070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI T NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. FOR SRI ADITYA R CHAKRAGIRI, ADV. FOR C/R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/08/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2201/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard learned counsel Sri K. Satish for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri B. Ravindranath for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned counsel Sri T. Narayanaswamy for Sri Aditya R. Chakragiri, for respondent No. 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 2201 of 2025 is before this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a Group-C employee, was posted in J.P. Nagar Range on 22.07.2022. In terms of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, the petitioner was entitled to a minimum tenure of four years at the transferred place. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred on 12.05.2025 by posting respondent No. 3 to her place, while the petitioner herself was not shown any posting. In the meantime, by Government Order dated 14.05.2025, the Rules were notified as the “Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2025 Rules’), providing for postings by way of transfer through - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 counseling. The Tribunal, having noted that the 2025 Rules had been notified and that the petitioner had participated in the counseling and opted for a place outside Bengaluru, disposed of the application holding the same to be infructuous. 4. Learned counsel Sri K. Satish for the petitioner submits that, as on the date of the impugned transfer on 12.05.2025, the 2024 Guidelines were in operation, and that the transfer of the petitioner prior to the expiry of four years is premature and in violation of the said Government Order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s participation in the counseling and opting for a posting outside Bengaluru would not prejudice her rights in the present writ petition. It is contended that merely opting for a posting during the pendency of the writ petition cannot divest the petitioner of her right to the minimum tenure as prescribed under the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri T. Narayanaswamy, appearing for Sri Aditya R. Chakragiri, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submits that the petitioner has been working in Bengaluru for more than 20 years, and in view of her long-standing service in the city, the impugned transfer on administrative exigency, with the approval of the Chief Minister, is permissible and in compliance with the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. Learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of the 2025 Rules, the tenure has been reduced to three years. Accordingly, the petitioner has completed the minimum tenure and is liable to be transferred. Learned counsel further contends that no Government servant is entitled to continue for an extended period at the same place. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 was posted to Bengaluru for the first time under the impugned transfer order. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the following judgments: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 1. OM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. RANBIR B. GOYAL1 2. C.MANJUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2 3. M.B.CHANDRASHEKAR VS. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED3 4. SMT.VEENA.H.S., VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the undisputed facts are noted. The petitioner was posted in J.P. Nagar Range on 22.07.2022. She is a Group-C employee entitled to a minimum tenure of four years in the posting. There is no dispute that the Government Order dated 25.06.2024 permits premature transfer with the approval of the Chief Minister. However, the material on record does not indicate any specific reasons justifying the premature 1 (2002) 2 SCC 256 2 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1620 3 W.A.No.203/2023, Decided on 05.04.2023 4 2024 (4) KantLJ 554 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 transfer. It is consistently held by this Court that administrative exigency, in itself, does not constitute a valid ground for premature transfer. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has vehemently contended that, in view of the petitioner’s long-standing service in the same city, her transfer is justifiable. However, no such criteria is provided in the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. 8. Having regard to the fact that the transfer of the petitioner was effected prior to the completion of the minimum tenure of four years, and in the absence of any justifiable reasons for premature transfer, the same is in violation of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration the petitioner’s participation in the counseling process, committed an error in holding that her application had become infructuous. This Court is of the view that the transfer of the petitioner under the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 is contrary to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. The Government Order dated 12.05.2025, reducing the period of tenure to three years, has no application to the present case, as the transfers were effected well before the said Rules came into force. In view of the foregoing, we are inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. This Court, in Miss Seema H. vs. The State of Karnataka and Others5, has held that an official subjected to transfer shall not be left without a posting. In the present case, the petitioner has been transferred under the impugned order from J.P. Nagar without being allotted any posting. For this reason as well, the impugned order of transfer is not sustainable. 10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following: 5 W.P.No.48499/2016 dated 16.09.2016 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34029-DB WP No. 26103 of 2025 ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) The order in Application No.2201/2025 dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside. c) The impugned order dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-A5) issued by respondent No.2 insofar as petitioner and respondent No.3 are concerned is hereby set aside. d) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.3 to make a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for providing appropriate posting. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms