- 1 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 6209 OF 2026 (S-CAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8187 OF 2026 (S-CAT) IN WP No. 6209/2026 BETWEEN: SMT. VARTIKA KATIYAR, IPS D/O HEMANT KATIYAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, IPS, (DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE), R/AT DIGP RESIDENCE, PLOT NO.3A/B6 NEAR HOTEL PALA PARADISE, CANTONMENT AREA, HOSPET, BALLARI-583 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DR. P. S. HARSHA IPS (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE) 105, HMT TOWNSHIP JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AGA A/W SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.E-DPAR 07 SPS 2026 DATED 07.01.2026 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN ANNEXURE-A5 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 8187/2026 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: 1. SMT. VARTIKA KATIYAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, IPS, (DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE), OFFICE OF THE DIG, BELLARY RANGE, BRUCEPET, BELLARI - 583 101. 2. DR. P. S. HARSHA IPS (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE) NO. 0 105 HMT TOWNSHIP, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE DIRECTION IN PARAGRAPH No. 41 AND TO PAY A SUM OF Rs.76,500/- TOWARDS SCHOOL FEES, RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH No.42 OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2026 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL - 3 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU BENCH, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00027/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 13.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 13.02.2026 in O.A.No.170/00027/2026 rejecting her challenge to the order of transfer under notification bearing No.e-DPAR 07 SPS 2026 dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure-A5). 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, an officer of the Indian Police Service was transferred and posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range in the downgraded vacant post under notification - 4 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure-A2). Under impugned notification dated 07.01.2026, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range to work as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in the upgraded vacant post. Questioning the said transfer notification and posting of respondent No.2 in her place as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range, the petitioner was before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under impugned order dismissed her application holding that the petitioner is not the holder of the notified cadre post and as such the tenure of two years would have no application to the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition questioning the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the transfer notification. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent - 5 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 No.1 and learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal along with Sri.Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers including the original file, Xerox copy of which is made available. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya for petitioner would submit that the impugned transfer notification dated 07.01.2026 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (for short, ‘Rules, 1954’) and also opposed to Section 20F of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) which provides tenure to the police officers in the State. Learned counsel referring to Rule 7(c)(iii) of Rules, 1954 would submit that before completion of tenure, a Police officer could be transferred only on the recommendation of the Committee on minimum tenure and in the instant case, no such recommendation is made by the Committee on minimum tenure. It is further contended that the petitioner being a Member of the Indian Police Service, is a ‘Cadre Officer’ as - 6 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 defined under Rule 2(a) of Rules, 1954. Learned counsel referring to Section 20F of the Act contends that the Officers who are in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of two years and referring to Sub-Section (2) of Section 20F, learned counsel would submit that the Additional Director General of Police, the Inspector General of Police in charge of Range who are on operational duties in the field or such other duties as may be shall have minimum tenure of one year and the Superintendent of Police in charge of the District including Additional Superintendent of Police shall have a minimum tenure of two years. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not even completed one year at Ballari and as such, the transfer of the petitioner requires interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob placing reliance on the Cadre Strength Notification dated 29.09.2022 submits that the Deputy - 7 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 Inspector General of Police at Ballari is not a notified cadre post and the petitioner was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police against a downgraded vacancy, as such, the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of Rule 7 of Rules, 1954 or benefit of Section 20F of the Act. It is his specific contention that the minimum tenure assured under the Rules, 1954 or the Act would be available only to an officer who is holding the Cadre Post in terms of Rules, 1954. Further, learned Additional Advocate General pointing out from the records would submit that the transfer of the petitioner was necessitated by compelling administrative exigencies, in view of sensitive law and order situation that arose in Ballari on 01.01.2026, which required a Senior Officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police at Ballari. Moreover, he submits that the transfer is an incidence of service and is not a condition of service, as such, he submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Tribunal also committed an error in issuing directions at - 8 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 paragraphs (41) and (42) which are beyond the scope of the application before the Tribunal. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the applicant and to allow the petition filed by the State. 6. Learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal would submit that the petitioner was occupying a downgraded and non-cadre post, as such, she would not get any right to seek continuation till completion of her tenure. Furthermore, he submits that the transfer appears to have been effected for administrative reasons which cannot be interfered with by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would fall for our consideration: i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the petitioner was not holding a notified Cadre - 9 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 Post, as such, she would not be entitled for a protection of minimum tenure? ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 8. Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative and partly in the affirmative, respectively for the following reasons: Transfer of a Government servant is an incidence of service and not a condition of service. (B.VARADHA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS)1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions and particularly in the case of State of U.P., VS. GOBARDHAN LAL2 while deciding transfer of a Government servant at paragraphs (7) and (8) has held as follows: "7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but 1 AIR 1986 SC 1955 2 (2004) 11 SCC 402 - 10 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed - 11 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." (emphasis supplied) 9. Normally, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the transfer notification or in the process of judicial review the Courts would not sit as an administrator to examine the same. The transfer and posting of a Government servant is an exclusive domain of - 12 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 the executive based on the administrative necessity and administrative exigency, subject to the statutory provisions, if any, in the matter of transfer. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner who was working as Deputy Inspector General and Additional Commandant General, Home Guards and Ex-Officio Additional Director, Civil Defence, Bengaluru was posted to work as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range on downgraded post. Under notification dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-R2), Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 was amended insofar as Karnataka is concerned, indicates Cadre Post of Inspector General of Police, at Ballari Range, Ballari. The petitioner was posted against the said post by downgrading it to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, which post the petitioner was holding. Therefore, when the petitioner was posted to a downgraded post as Deputy Inspector General of Police to Ballari Range, the petitioner would not get tenure as prescribed under the Rules, 1954 or the Act. - 13 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 11. The Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not belonging to the cadre of Inspector General of Police, as such, cannot claim right of minimum tenure. The Tribunal at paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 has assigned proper reasons to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not holder of the Cadre Post at Ballari, as such, the petitioner cannot claim tenure. 12. Further, the respondent-State contended that due to the administrative exigency, it required the State to post a senior official who is in the cadre of Inspector General of Police and the transfer is approved by the Chief Minister. When the records would indicate that the State posted a Cadre Officer in the administrative exigency, this Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.SUNEEL KUMAR, IPS AND ETC., VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3 to say that the transfer and posting is the 3 2013 (3) AKR 415 - 14 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 exclusive domain of the Police Establishment Board or the Committee. 13. In the facts of the present case, the said decision would have no application and moreover, in view of the amendment of the Act insofar as Clause (c) of Section 20B of the Act, the decision of T.SUNEEL KUMAR (supra) has no application in the present case. 14. W.P.No.8187/2026 is by the State Government challenging the very same order dated 13.02.2026 in O.A.No.170/000027/2026, which is the subject matter of above writ petition No.6209/2026, contending that the Tribunal could not have directed the petitioners herein to refund the fees of schooling of applicant’s son on further relocation for the respective academic year and also to sanction leave if the applicant intends to avail leave to support the schooling of her child for the academic year. 15. It is contended that the said direction could not have been issued by the Tribunal since there was no such - 15 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 prayer and there was no opportunity for the petitioners- State in that regard. 16. Learned counsel Sri.Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya would submit that it was within the competence of the Tribunal to grant such other relief as such, he prays for not to interfere with the said direction. 17. On going through the O.A., filed before the Tribunal, it is seen that there is no prayer for refund of the fees towards schooling of the children of the applicant and it is also noticed that there is no pleading to that effect. Therefore, there was no occasion for the State Government to controvert the same. Hence, the Tribunal is not justified in giving such direction. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER a) W.P.No.6209/2026 stands dismissed. b) W.P.No.8187/2026 stands allowed and portion of the order directing petitioners to refund the fees of schooling of applicant’s son on further relocation for the respective - 16 - WP No. 6209 of 2026 C/W WP No. 8187 of 2026 academic year and also to sanction leave if the applicant intends to avail leave to support the schooling of her child for the academic year stands quashed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:NJ