- 1 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 Reserved on : 27.03.2026 Pronounced on : 17.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 9651 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MOHANA KUMARA M., S/O. M. B. CHIKKAMUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. RESIDING AT No.753, 8TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 3RD STAGE, KATHREGUPPE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RANGANATH R PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, ROOM No.106, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, No.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001. 4. SMT. KAVYASHREE H. G. , HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS SHIRASTEDAR, OFFICE OF LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 5, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU - 560 020. 5. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, HIGH VIEW, VINOBA ROAD, OPPOSITE KALAMANDIR, MYSURU - 570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R5; SRI J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.03.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4180/2025 C/W APPLICATION No.4300/2025 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.4180/2025 C/W APPLICATION No.4300/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B AND D RESPECTIVELY), AS PRAYED FOR. - 3 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Ranganath R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Sri J.D. Kashinath, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.4. 2. This writ petition is directed against the common order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.4180/2025 c/w Application No.4300/2025. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Accountant and was thereafter promoted as a First Division Assistant (FDA). The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) on 29.07.2022, and his services were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 – - 4 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), where he was posted as Manager, Land Acquisition Officer–I. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from his earlier post of Deputy Tahsildar, Maddur. Subsequently, he was regularly promoted as Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar on 31.05.2023 and continued to serve in KIADB. 3.1 Such being the fact, respondent No.4 was posted in place of the petitioner vide order dated 16.09.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal, contending that no posting had been given to him and also challenging the posting of respondent No.4 in his place. It was further contended that respondent No.4 had been posted without the consent of the lending department. 3.2 During the pendency of Application No.4180/2025, and while the interim order dated 18.09.2025 was in operation, the petitioner was repatriated and posted to a vacant post of Election Sheristedar, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya. This action again became the subject matter of Application No.4300/2025. The Tribunal, by a common order, rejected both the applications. - 5 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 4. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ranganath R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by respondent No.5, withdrawing the deputation of the petitioner from KIADB and posting him as Election Sheristedar in the Taluk Office, Pandavapura, is in violation of the interim order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Application No.4180/2025, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date. 4.1 It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner without assigning him an appropriate posting is unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner, while on deputation, is entitled to a minimum tenure in terms of the transfer guidelines. It is also contended that, under Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), the petitioner is entitled to deputation tenure with a minimum of four years and a maximum of five years. Therefore, the repatriation of the petitioner as per Annexure–A10 dated 24.09.2025 is in violation of the prescribed minimum tenure. 4.2 It is further submitted that the cancellation of deputation is politically motivated and intended to accommodate respondent No.4. It is contended that the impugned order of - 6 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 cancellation of deputation is bereft of reasons and is therefore unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that the deputation of the petitioner has been cancelled based on a note issued by the Personal Secretary to the Hon’ble Revenue Minister, without any independent application of mind. Lastly, it is contended that there is no order deputing respondent No.4 to KIADB, and therefore, the posting of respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner is without authority of law. 5. Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, submits that the deputation of the petitioner has been cancelled in exercise of powers under Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR). It is contended that the cancellation of deputation is not premature and that a deputationist does not have the protection of a minimum tenure. 5.1 It is further submitted that the posting of respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner has been made on grounds of administrative convenience and exigencies of service. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that there is no illegality or infirmity either in the order cancelling the - 7 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 deputation of the petitioner or in posting respondent No.4 in his place in KIADB. 6. Sri J.D. Kashinath, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4, submits that respondent No.4 has been posted on deputation by Official Memorandum dated 16.09.2025. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the post in KIADB in view of the cancellation of the order of deputation. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4 is entitled to a minimum tenure in the present posting at KIADB. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. The petitioner was deputed to KIADB by Official Memorandum dated 24.08.2022 issued by respondent No.5, who is the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru Division. The said Official Memorandum indicates that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to work as Manager, Land Acquisition Officer–I, KIADB, and that the Land Acquisition Officer–I, KIADB had agreed to take him on deputation. The same was approved by the Chief Executive Officer, KIADB, in exercise of powers under Rule 50(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules - 8 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 (KCSR). Pursuant to the deputation, the petitioner reported for duty on 29.08.2022 and was posted to the present post on 03.09.2022. While on deputation to KIADB, the petitioner was regularly promoted as Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar on 31.05.2023. 9. Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) does not deal with the power of the Regional Commissioner to depute a Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar on deputation. The said Rule only governs the terms and conditions applicable to a Government servant on deputation from one department to another. It primarily prescribes the pay and allowances admissible during deputation and stipulates that the period of deputation shall not ordinarily exceed five years. On a plain reading of Rule 50 of the KCSR, respondent No.5 – Regional Commissioner lacks the competency to depute the petitioner to KIADB. 10. Similarly, the Official Memorandum at Annexure–A10 dated 24.09.2025, whereby the deputation of the petitioner to KIADB has been withdrawn/cancelled, purportedly in exercise of powers under Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), is also unsustainable. Both the order of deputation and - 9 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 the order cancelling the deputation refer to the exercise of power under Rule 50 of the KCSR, which, as noticed above, does not confer such power. 11. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to the source of power to effect deputation under Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) and the correctness of its invocation, both fairly submitted that the Rule does not confer such power. On a plain reading of Rule 50 of the KCSR, it is evident that no such power is vested in respondent No.5 – Regional Commissioner to depute the petitioner to KIADB. The deputation of the petitioner is thus not in conformity with the legal framework governing deputation of Government servants from one department to another. 12. Once the very deputation of the petitioner is found to be illegal, the petitioner cannot turn around and seek enforcement of a minimum tenure of four years in the deputed post based on an unsustainable order of deputation. The same reasoning would apply to the Official Memorandum dated 24.09.2025 cancelling the deputation. In the absence of any specific - 10 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 statutory provision empowering respondent No.5 to depute the petitioner to KIADB, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.5 has acted without authority of law. The deputation of the petitioner is illegal, and the action of respondent No.5 is unsustainable. 13. In order to ascertain the source of power exercised by respondent No.5 in deputing the petitioner, we once again queried the learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to point out any statutory provision enabling respondent No.5 to exercise such power of deputation. In that view of the matter, we hold that respondent No.5 – Regional Commissioner, Mysuru, acted without authority of law in deputing the petitioner to KIADB. 14. After cancellation of the deputation of the petitioner to KIADB and upon his being posted in the Revenue Department as Election Tahsildar in the Taluk Office, Pandavapura, respondent No.4 came to be posted in his place by order dated 16.09.2025. The Official Memorandum dated 16.09.2025 is sought to be construed by respondent No.4 as an order of deputation. The said submission is misconceived. - 11 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 15. A plain reading of the Official Memorandum dated 16.09.2025 clearly indicates that it pertains to the transfer of respondent No.4 to the post held by the petitioner, and not a deputation. Admittedly, KIADB is not a part of the Revenue Department. It is also not the case of the State that the post of Manager, Special Land Acquisition Officer–I, KIADB is a cadre post meant for Government servants of the Revenue Department. In any event, such a contention is not available to the State in view of its earlier action of deputing the petitioner to the said post by Official Memorandum dated 24.08.2022 issued by respondent No.5. 16. The manner in which the Rules have been applied in the present case discloses inconsistency and arbitrariness. It appears that postings of the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been effected without adherence to any governing statutory provision, but rather on an ad hoc basis. We find a complete absence of any legal authority governing the posting of the petitioner to KIADB. 17. We are constrained to observe that the applicable Rules have not been followed in their proper spirit in effecting the postings/deputation of the petitioner and respondent No.4 to - 12 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 KIADB. The material on record indicates that the said postings are not founded on any discernible administrative necessity, but appear to have been made to accommodate the individuals concerned. Such actions, particularly at the level of the Regional Commissioner, and with approval at higher levels, give rise to serious concerns regarding fairness and adherence to the rule of law. In the absence of any statutory provision cited by either of the parties to justify the posting of respondent No.4 as Manager, KIADB, the same can only be held to be illegal and unsustainable. 18. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, has held that the period of deputation does not confer any fixed tenure, and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim a minimum tenure in view of the cancellation of the order of deputation. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner cannot have any grievance inasmuch as he has been provided a posting within the parent department. The Tribunal has also referred to the Circular dated 14.08.2024, whereby the services of Government servants of the Revenue Department on deputation to other departments were withdrawn, and has held that the order cancelling the deputation cannot be faulted. This court finds itself in agreement with the order of the tribunal. - 13 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 19. In the light of the reasons assigned hereinabove, as well as those stated by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 20. Hence, the following: Order (i) Writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 dismissing Application No.4180/2025 c/w Application No.4300/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The Official Memorandum dated 16.09.2025 Annexure-A7 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, is set aside insofar as posting respondent No.4 as Manager, Special Land Acquisition Officer-I, KIADB, Bengaluru (iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to provide posting to respondent No.4 forthwith. (v) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, who shall - 14 - WP No. 9651 of 2026 conduct enquiry on the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 24.08.2022 issued by the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru Division, deputing the petitioner to KIADB. (vi) The action taken report shall be placed before this Court. (vii) No order as to costs. Pending I.As., if any, stand/s disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV