- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1031 WP No. 28443 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28443 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: N MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR RAMANALLI PATANNA PANCHAYATH RAMANALLI, MYSORE-570 019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION -2 AND BOARD) MS BUILDING, BANGALORE -560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V V TOWER, 9TH FLOOR DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE -560 001. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATHI RAMMANAHALLI, MYSORE -570 019. 4. SRI. SHAKEEL AHMED AGED MAJOR FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR CHAMARAJANAGAR Digitally signed by MALATHI CHALUVA IYENGAR Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1031 WP No. 28443 of 2025 CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI. T. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PREM KUMAR P, ADVOCATE FOR R3: SRI, RAGHAVENDRA N, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN NO. NA. A. E 136 TMS 2025 ON THE FILE OF R1. AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION / ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 BEARING NO. NA. A .E 136 TMS 2025 VIDE ANNEUXRE-B TO THE WP AND DIRECT THE R1 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF FGRI AT RAMANAHALLI TOWN PANCHAYATHI TILL THE TENURE IS OVER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 16.09.2025, vide Annexure-B, whereby respondent No.4 has been posted in place of the petitioner and the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent Corporation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant (SDA) in the Mysore City Corporation. Later, he was promoted as a First Division Assistant (FDA). Thereafter, by order dated 31.07.2024 vide Annexure-A, he was deputed to Rammanalli Pattana Panchayath without change in his pay scale. Respondent No.1, by the impugned order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1031 WP No. 28443 of 2025 16.09.2025 vide Annexure-B, has repatriated the petitioner to his parent Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.4, who has been transferred to the place of the petitioner, was working as First Grade Revenue Inspector in Chamarajanagar, City Municipal Council and he has been transferred to the petitioner’s place prematurely, without completing his tenure. The transfer of respondent No.4 is contrary to the transfer policy. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 have submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Mysore City Corporation. On deputation, he was transferred to Rammanalli Pattana Panchayath. Thereafter, by the impugned order, he has been repatriated to his parent Corporation. Therefore, he has no grievance to challenge the transfer of respondent No.4. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1031 WP No. 28443 of 2025 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee of the Mysore City Corporation. He was deputed to Rammanalli Pattana Panchayat vide Annexure-A dated 31.07.2024 without change in his pay scale. By the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 vide Annexure-B, he has been repatriated to his parent Corporation. Since the petitioner is the employee of the Corporation and on deputation, he can be repatriated at any time by the Government and he cannot have any grievance with regard to the transfer of respondent No.4 and he belongs to the cadre of local authorities. 7. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-B. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications, if any, are also dismissed of accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22