- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 36087 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. KATHYAYINI R W/O SRI. DEVARAJ S.R., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, LAB. ATTENDER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560 068 AND RESIDING AT SHARAVATHI SANKEERNA ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 2. THE DIRECTOR STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 IN A. No. 3418/2025 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D; (b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, IN PARTICULAR THE RESPONDENT No. 2 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS A LABORATORY ATTENDER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, MADIVALA, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is working as a 'Laboratory Attender' with the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, and she has called in question the second respondent's order dated 12.06.2025 transferring her to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Davanagere with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in the application in No.3418/2025. 2. The Tribunal, by this impugned order dated 19.11.2025, has rejected the petitioner's application observing that: [a] The petitioner, who is posted in the present post on 29.05.2017 has completed her minimum tenure [seven years] and she is relieved on 16.06.2025, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 [b] Sri Vinayak Sunagar who is posted in her place has reported to duty on 09.07.2025. [c] The petitioner cannot take advantage of the application filed by her for extension of Child Care Leave and such application has rightly been rejected. [d] If the petitioner wanted to avail Child Care Leave, she had to report to her place of posting and then apply with the concerned. [e] If there is to be any intervention at the instance of the petitioner, Sri Vinayak Sunagar who has reported to duty on 09.07.2025 would be displaced. The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner cannot claim any exemption from transfer on the ground that her husband is also working in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 Bengaluru because she was posted to Bengaluru in the year 2017 only on such ground. 3. This Court has heard Sri M Nagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the petitioner's grievance with her transfer and the Tribunal's order rejecting her application with the learned counsel submitting that the petitioner's husband working in Bengaluru and if she has to report to duty at Davanagere, the studies of her daughter who is in Tenth Standard would be jeopardized. 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has secured instructions in the light of these circumstances, and he submits that the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate her case that her daughter is studying in Tenth Standard and that the petitioner's absence from 16.06.2025 [the date she is relieved from the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru] is treated as 'unauthorized absence'. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 5. Further, Sri Vikas Rojipura, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner reports to duty at Davanagere and applies for grant of Child Care Leave, that would be favourably considered. The learned Additional Government Advocate emphasizes that his instructions from the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru are that although the petitioner has reported to duty before her transfer, but she does not follow instructions in discharge of her duties. 6. In rejoinder, Sri M Nagarajan submits that this Court must examine the petitioner's grievance with her transfer and the Tribunal's order in the light of the fact that the respondents' contention that she is relieved on 16.06.2025 when indisputably she was on Child Care Leave between 04.06.2025 and 18.06.2025; that the petitioner could not have been relieved when she was on such leave and that there are more than 34 vacant posts of 'Laboratory - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 Attender' as against the sanctioned strength of 44 posts with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. 7. 7. This Court has considered the question of interfering with the Tribunal's order and the second respondent's decision to transfer the petitioner from Bengaluru to Davanagere as part of general transfers in the light of the fact that the petitioner is transferred while she was on Child Care Leave with the respondents contending that she is relieved on 16.06.2025 when she admittedly was on such leave until 18.06.2025; that the incumbent Sri Vinayak Sunagar has reported to duty only on 09.07.2025, that there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the application with the Tribunal with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo; that the petitioner's specific case is that her daughter is in the Tenth Standard and that there are 34 vacancies as against the sanctioned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 strength of 44 with the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. 8. This Court, upon consideration of these circumstances as also the fact that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of transfer on the ground that her spouse is working in Bengaluru and that she has completed the minimum period of seven years, is of the view that there must be interference with the second respondent's order as also the Tribunal's decision, calling upon the respondents to show the petitioner's posting against a vacant post with the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, that she must be continued in that post until the next general transfers. 9. This Court is also of the further opinion that with the Tribunal's decision directing the parties to maintain status quo which prevailed until its decision on 19.11.2025, the petitioner's absence from duty cannot be treated as 'unauthorized absence', but - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 this Court is persuaded to observe that the petitioner cannot come across as being recalcitrant in discharging her duties and if indeed she gives any reason and that amounts to misconduct as contemplated under the relevant Rules, the authorities must act under the law. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of modifying the Tribunal's impugned order dated 19.11.2025 in Application No.3418/2025 directing the respondents to show the petitioner's posting as against a vacant post with the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru until the next general transfer without treating her service from 18.06.2025 as unauthorized absence. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53817-DB WP No. 36087 of 2025 [b] The petitioner's posting as aforesaid shall be subject to this Court's observation in the course of this order. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent for due compliance, and even otherwise, the second respondent, on receipt of instructions from the office of the learned Advocate General, shall ensure that there is due compliance. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE AN/-