- 1 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 27854 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. K C DORESWAMY S/O LATE. M. CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, CURRENTLY UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER FROM SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MAHATMA GANDHI COMPLEX YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU- 560 022. R/AT NO.665, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK, UPKAR LAYOUT, ULLAL, BENGALURU -560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MISS. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MAHATMA GANDHI COMPLEX YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU-560 022. 4. RAMESH V ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIVISIONAL OFFICE AND ENFORCEMENT CELL MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE-570004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. SUDHINDRA, HCGP SRI UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI GOPALKRISHNA KURANDWAD, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION NO.3774-3775 OF 2026, BEFORE THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND 1. QUASH ORDER DATE 21.08.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3774-3776 OF 2026, (UNDER ANNEXURE A), IN SO FAR AS IT REJECT THE INTERIM PRAYER SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.09.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2026 in Applications No.3774- 3775/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting interim prayer to stay the notification dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure-A8) promoting respondent No.4 to the cadre of Additional Director and Notification dated 29.07.2026 (Annexure-A9) posting respondent No.4 in petitioner’s place and transferring the petitioner to the place of respondent No.4. 2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for Ms.Ashwini Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Sudhindra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla for Sri.Gopalakrishna Karangada, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 3. Learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal would submit that the petitioner was before the Tribunal questioning the notification dated 18.05.2026 promoting respondent No.4 to the post of Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing and subsequent notification dated 29.07.2026 posting respondent No.4 in the place of petitioner and transferring the petitioner to the place of respondent No.4 at Mysuru. Learned senior counsel would submit that the selection of respondent No.4 to Group-B post of District Marketing Officer was revised and in the revised select list dated 30.01.2021, the name of respondent No.4 was not included in the select list which was the subject matter of Application No.686/2021 and the Tribunal refused to interfere with the revised select list and dismissed the application of Respondent No.4. Against which, respondent No.4 is before this Court in W.P.No.9297/2022 and this Court, on 05.05.2022 granted an order of status-quo. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that by virtue of the order of status-quo, the respondent No.4 continued in service in the post held - 5 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 by him i.e., Joint Director of Agricultural and Marketing. However, he could not have been promoted to the next higher cadre of Additional Director. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that when the petitioner could not have been promoted as Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing, he is not eligible to hold the post of Additional Director, as such, he could not have been posted to disturb the present place of petitioner as the Secretary of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Tribunal erred while deciding the interim prayer to stay the Notification of transfer and in coming to the conclusion that the promotion of respondent No.4 is in no way causing prejudice or affecting the position of the petitioner. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the finding of the Tribunal while rejecting the interim prayer would render the application before the Tribunal itself infructuous. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that merely because the petitioner has completed his tenure, the Tribunal could not have rejected the - 6 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 interim prayer when respondent No.4, who is not eligible to hold the post of Additional Director is posted in place of the petitioner. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to grant interim prayer as prayed for before the Tribunal. 4. Per contra. learned senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla for respondent No.4 would submit that the interim order of status-quo granted to Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.9297/2022 would relate to the deletion or otherwise of his name from the select list and when Respondent No.4 is continued in service by virtue of the order of status-quo, he would be entitled for all the benefits available on his continuation. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that when the petitioner has completed his tenure, he cannot stick to the post and he has no right to continue further after completion of his tenure. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would - 7 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 submit that the contentions raised by the petitioner are required to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of disposal of the application. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the rejection of interim prayer under impugned order dated 21.08.2026 in Applications No.3774-3775/2026. 7. The contentions raised by the petitioner, whether respondent No.4 would be entitled for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing and whether the posting of respondent No.4 in petitioner’s place is contrary to the interim order granted in favour of respondent No.4 in W.P.No.9297/2022 are all matters for the Tribunal to decide at the time of final disposal of the pending application. The question as to whether the petitioner could continue after completion of his tenure in - 8 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 the present post in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is to be gone into by the Tribunal on receiving response from the State Government. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances was of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal has taken note of the completion of tenure of the petitioner. The said finding is only for the purpose of granting or non- granting of the interim prayer of the petitioner. 8. However, the Tribunal at this stage could not have given a prima facie finding that the promotion given to respondent No.4 is in no way causing prejudice or affecting the post or position of the petitioner. 9. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim prayer as sought before the Tribunal. We make it clear that any observations made by the Tribunal while rejecting interim prayer shall only be for the purpose of passing interim order and the same shall not influence - 9 - WP No. 27854 of 2026 the Tribunal while considering the main prayer of the petitioner. 10. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE MPK CT:bms