Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37791 (KAR)

SRI.SATISH R v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

WP/20746/2026 · 2026-08-28

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465612026 NC: 2026:KHC:46633 WP No. 20746 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 20746 OF 2026 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI.SATISH R S/O. SRI RAVI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.104, 'RAMA PREMA NILAYA', NEAR TREE TOP SCHOOL, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BELURU ROAD, HASSAN-573 212. PRESENTLY WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC.), MOSALE HOSALLI BRANCH, O AND M CIRCLE, CESCOM, HASSAN-573 212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL), CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, INDHANA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465612026 NC: 2026:KHC:46633 WP No. 20746 of 2026 BENGALURU-560 009. 3. SRI DILIP KUMAR C.N., S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE - MAJOR, PRESENT WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER, 66/11 KV SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL, UDAYPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3- DILIP KUMAR C N IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.30-06-2026 BEARING NO.K.V.PRA.NL.NL/U.PRA.VYA.(C)/VYA(C-1)/B60/76/2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS SL.NO.109 AND 110 TO ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Issue Writ of CERTIORARI by quashing the impugned Order dt.30-06-2026 bearing No.K.V.PRA.NI.NI./U.PRA.VYA.(C)/VYA(C-1) /B60/ 76/2026 passed by 2nd Respondent as per ANNEXURE-A in so far as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is concerned, which is Sl.No.109 and 110 to ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465612026 NC: 2026:KHC:46633 WP No. 20746 of 2026 b) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2.1 The petitioner was posted to the present place by virtue of an official memorandum issued by respondent No.2 on 15.07.2023. The petitioner reported to the present place and subsequently coming to higher authority on 17.07.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was prematurely disturbed by way of transfer from the present place and in his place, respondent No.3 been posted vide Annexure-A. The petitioner filed this petition challenging Annexure - A on the ground that Annexure - A impugned order of transfer is premature. Hence prays to quash Annexure - A. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to the present place on 15.07.2023 and admittedly, he is a group - C employee and minimum tenure at - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465612026 NC: 2026:KHC:46633 WP No. 20746 of 2026 one place is four years and by virtue of Annexure - A, the order of Annexure - A is premature. He submits that impugned Annexure - A is in violation of transfer guidelines and proposition laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 and S.N.Gangadharaiah Vs. State of Karnataka2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that Annexure - A is only a recommendation and the respondents are not acted upon on the said recommendation as of today. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was posted to the present place by virtue of an official memorandum dated 15.07.2023 and he reported to the petitioner present place on 1 ILR 2011 KAR 1585 2 ILR 2015 KAR 1955 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465612026 NC: 2026:KHC:46633 WP No. 20746 of 2026 17.07.2023. The respondent No.2 issued Annexure - A dated 30.06.2026. From the perusal of Annexure - A, it is clear that the said Annexure - A is seeking permission to transfer the employees. Annexure - A is not an order of transfer. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendation is not maintainable and moreover the respondents have not acted on the Annexure - A as of today. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge, if any order of transfer is passed pursuant to Annexure-A. (iii) Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BS