1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.39283/2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI AVINASH GERALD S/O JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF AUDITOR GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, B.B.M.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX SUBHASHNAGAR (MAJESTIC) BEHIND UPPARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE- 560 001 R/AT NO.371, 2ND CROSS 9TH BLOCK, II STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BDA LAYOUT BANGALORE- 560 072 PH:9880272228 EMAIL ID:AVICRPATNA1985@GMAIL.COM ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT (ADVANCE & BUDGET) VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 3 560 001. 2 2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT T.T.M.C. BUILDING 8A9 BLOCK, BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027. 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560001. 4. SRI GURUBASAVEGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA AGED BOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS JOINT CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF AUDITOR LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE- 560027. 5. SRI LINGANNA GUNDALLI S/O GURUPADAPPA KUCHABAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS JOINT CONTROLLER STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT WAITING FOR POSTING R/AT NO.134, 7TH MAIN 9TH CROSS, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R3 SRI SUMUKH SHASTRY R., ADV. FOR R4 SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI DIVYATEJ H.N., ADV.F OR C/R5) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KANATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4568/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 09.03.2026 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) Petitioner i.e., respondent No.5 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short 8Tribunal9) in Application No. 4568/2025 (Annexure-A) is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2025, wherein the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: <ORDER The Application is disposed of with a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the cancellation of transfer of the 5th respondent vide order dated 25.09.2025 as Finance officer, 4 Karnataka Panchayath Raj Commissionerate and bringing back to him to the place of 4th respondent i.e., Chief Auditor, GBA, Bengaluru when the applicant was waiting for posting and when the 1st and 2nd respondent could have provided posting him to a vacant post within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in A.No.2189/2025 which has been partly confirmed by the Hon9ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24374/2025 with certain directions. This exercise shall be done within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.= 2. Heard Sri. Satish K, learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri. B L Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri. Sumukh Shastry R for respondent No.4 and Sri. V Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Divyatej H N, learned advocate on record for Caveator/respondent No.5. 5 3. The parties to the present petition would be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner herein was respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal and respondent No.5 herein was applicant before the Tribunal. The applicant and respondent No.5 are in the cadre of Chief Auditor in the State Accounts Department. It is stated that in terms of Notification dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-A1), the applicant was posted as Chief Accounts Officer, BBMP in place of respondent No.4, who was posted to Maharani Cluster University. The said Notification was challenged by respondent No. 4 in Application No.2189/2025 and the Tribunal by order dated 17.07.2025 set aside the Notification dated 09.05.2025 posting applicant to BBMP. Against the said order of the Tribunal dated 17.07.2025, the applicant approached this Court in W.P.No.24374/2025. This Court by order dated 18.08.2025, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to 6 the applicant to make representation to respondents No.1 and 2, requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Children Development Department, till he completes his tenure. It is stated that respondent No.5 was transferred as Finance Officer, Karnataka Panchayathraj Commissionerate, Bengaluru on 25.09.2025. Before he could report to duty, the respondent No.5 was posted as Chief Auditor, Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short 8GBA9), Bengaluru, in place of respondent No.4 vide notification dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-A7). The said Notification dated 16.10.2025 was challenged by the applicant in Application No.4568/2025 contending that he is waiting for posting and in terms of order dated 18.08.2025 in W.P.No.24374/2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and order dated 17.07.2025 in Application No.2189/2025, the applicant has a legitimate expectation of considering his case for posting to GBA. The Tribunal under impugned order directed respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider 7 cancellation of transfer of respondent No.5 under Notification dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-R1) and to bring back him to the place of respondent No. 4. Questioning the said order, the fifth respondent is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel Sri. K. Satish for the petitioner would contend that the applicant has no locus to challenge the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-A7) posting the respondent No.5 to GBA as Chief Audit Officer in place of respondent No.4. Moreover, he submits that the applicant during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, was given posting as Chief Accounts Officer to Agricultural University, GKVK, Bengaluru, where the applicant has not reported to duty till date. Further, learned counsel would submit that Notification dated 16.10.2025 would not relate to the applicant and he is no way aggrieved by the said Notification. Learned counsel would submit that the observation of the Tribunal that the observation of this 8 Court in W.P.No.24374/2025, that the respondent-State authorities ought to have considered the case of applicant9s for posting to GBA as Chief Audit Officer, is contrary to the order passed in the said writ petition. He submits that this Court in W.P.No.24374/2025, reserved liberty to the applicant to make representation requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Child Development Department, till he completes his tenure and there is no liberty or observation to give him posting to GBA. Further, learned counsel would submit that no Government servant has a right to seek for a particular posting and further he submits that Court or/and Tribunal also cannot direct posting to a particular post. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. V Lakshminarayana appearing for applicant would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that in terms 9 of the observation of this Court in W.P.No.24374/2025 as well as the observation of the Tribunal in Application No. 2189/2025, the Tribunal is right in directing to consider the applicant who was waiting for posting to provide him posting by canceling the order of posting respondents No.4 and 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the case of the respondent No.5 ought not to have been considered for posting as Chief Audit Officer to GBA in terms of the observation of this Court in W.P.No.35417/2025 dated 26.11.2025. Learned Senior Counsel further invites attention of this Court particularly to paragraph No. 5 of the said order and submits that as directed by this Court, the Tribunal examined the case of the applicant. Further, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the respondent No.5 was working in BBMP earlier also and he has not completed his cooling period after his repatriation. Further, it is submitted that the posting/deputation of respondent No.5 is against the norms prescribed for deputation of a Government servant. Further, learned Senior Counsel 10 would submit that in the light of the observation of this Court in two writ petitions, the applicant has a legitimate expectation of considering his case for posting to GBA when he was waiting for posting. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal could not have sat as an administrator and could not have directed respondents No. 1 and 2 to reconsider the cancellation of order of transfer of respondent No. 5 vide order dated 25.09.2025, as such, the impugned order of the Tribunal warrants interference by this Court. 8. It is a settled position of law that transfer is not a condition of service and it is only an incident of service. No Government servant or employee has a right to claim 11 posting to a particular post or place. To decide the suitability of a person to a post, is entirely the privilege of the administrative authorities and Court or Tribunal cannot decide who is suited to a particular post. Only when the transfer or posting is contrary to the fixed norms or when it is without jurisdiction or when it suffers from arbitrariness, this Court or Tribunal could interfere with such transfer or posting orders. 9. In the case on hand, the applicant, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 who belong to State Accounts Department are fighting for posting as Chief Auditor, GBA Bengaluru. The number of orders placed on record would indicate the fight between the applicant, respondent No. 4 and respondent No.5 for posting in various applications filed before the Tribunal and various writ petitions filed before this Court. In Application No. 2189/2025, disposed of by the Tribunal on 17.07.2025, it was a fight between respondent No.4 as well as the applicant, wherein 12 Notification dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-A1) was under challenge, where under the applicant was posted as Chief Audit Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru. In case of respondent No. 4, he was posted as Chief Officer, Maharani Cluster University, which was quashed by the Tribunal in Application No. 2189/2025. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, W.P. No. 24374/2025 was filed by the applicant and on consideration of the entire material on record, this Court at Paragraphs No. 8 and 9 has observed as follows: <8. The petitioner herein contended that his tenure at the Women and Children Development is also not completed and as such, the Tribunal committed grave error in directing the official respondents to provide suitable posting to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was posted to work as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Child Development Department under order dated 15.03.2024 and as such he has not completed his tenure at the said post. However, it is noticed from the impugned order that by notification dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner was posted as Chief Financial Officer, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure 13 Development Limited, Bengaluru and they modified the said order under impugned order and posted him to BBMP in the place of Respondent No.4 herein. 9. Therefore, in the light of the above facts, it is open for the Petitioner to make representation to the first and second respondents requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Child Development Department till he completes his tenure. If such representation is made, we are sure the authorities would consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate order.= 10. Since the applicant pleaded that he has not completed his tenure at Women and Child Development Department, he was given liberty to make representation requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Child Development Department, till he completes his tenure, with further observation that if such representation is made, the authorities would consider the same in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order. When the present Notification dated 16.10.2025, posting respondent No.5 as Chief Audit Officer in place of 14 respondent No.4 was challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal in Application No. 4568/2025 and when the interim order was rejected, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.35417/2025 and this Court by order dated 26.11.2025 disposed of the said petition and while disposing of the said petition at Paragraph No.5 it has observed as follows. <5. The question of interference with the Tribunal's order is examined in the light of these circumstances. This Court observes that for complete adjudication, the Tribunal must, on the next date of hearing viz., 03.12.2025 or at the earliest thereafter, examine why the petitioner must not be entitled to the protection that was extended to the fifth respondent in the light of its own finding in its order dated 07.05.2025 in Application Nos. 5151/2024 and 4847/2024 that the petitioner is entitled to continue on deputation until he completes the minimum tenure of deputation with the Department of Women and Child Development or his transfer is necessitated under law. The Tribunal must also examine the circumstances in which the approval is granted for bringing back the fifth respondent to the post 15 immediately on completion of the minimum period by the fourth respondent.= 11. The observations made by this Court in WP No. 24374/2025 to consider representation of the applicant to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and Children Development Department and the observations made in W.P.No.35417/2025 is also with regard to entitlement of applicant to continue on deputation until he completes minimum tenure of deputation with the Department of Women and Child Development. The same cannot be the basis to quash impugned Notification dated 16.10.2025 posting fifth respondent in place of fourth respondent. The petitioner is, in no way concerned with the said Notification dated 16.10.2025. The impugned notification relates to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The applicant cannot claim posting at GBA, Bangalore as a matter of right. 12. Moreover, during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the applicant is provided posting under Notification dated 01.12.2025 as Financial Controller, 16 Agricultural University, GKVK, Bengaluru. The petitioner has not reported to duty as Financial Controller at the Agricultural University. A Government servant has a duty and obligation to report to duty to the post or place where he is provided posting. Such Government servant cannot wait for posting of his choice. Non-reporting to duty when posting is given, from the date of giving posting till such Government servant joins duty in pursuance to the posting order, the said period shall be considered as absence and such period cannot be treated as compulsory waiting period. In the matter of transfer and posting, the principles of legitimate expectation would have no application. No Government servant has a legitimate expectation to get himself posted to a particular post or place. 13. If the fifth respondent has completed his tenure of deputation and if he has not completed cooling period, the State shall examine the said question/issue and take a suitable decision. Hence, the following:- 17 ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No. 4568/2025 is hereby quashed and application stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT: bms