- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104900 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAN LOKESH JADHAV AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OVERSEAR, GROUP-C, HESCOM, MUNDAGOD SUB-DIVISION, DIST. U.K.-581349. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025. 3. SMT. SHOBHA GIRIYAMMANAVAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: METER READER, HESCOM, MUNDAGOD SUB-DIVISION, MUNDAGOD, DIST. U.K.-581349. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 21.06.2025 IN NO.H.C.O-07/PRA.VYA(AA)/UU.LE.NI(AA)/ LE(AA)/SA.LE(AA)/SAAA.VA/B-37(1)/2025-26, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE- B, ONLY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SERIAL NO.13), AND ETC. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, a Group ‘C’ employee working as an Overseer in the services of HESCOM, has called in question the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 (Annexure-B), whereby he has been transferred from the post of Overseer to the post of Meter Reader within the same Subdivision at Mundgod, and has also sought for consequential reliefs. 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The petitioner entered into services of the respondent – HESCOM in the year 2005 as Assistant Lineman, he has been promoted as Lineman in the year 2007, and his promotion to the post of Overseer was confirmed on 16.03.2022. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 2.2. By the impugned order dated 21.06.2025, issued by respondent No.1, as part of general transfer order pertaining to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Overseer to Meter Reader in the same office, and Respondent No.3 has been posted in his place. 3. Contention of the petitioner: 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer is premature, as the petitioner has not completed the minimum prescribed tenure of four years under the transfer guidelines. 3.2. It is contended that the petitioner is a Secretary of KPTCL Employees Union w.e.f 18.10.2024 and his term will end in the year 2026. 3.3. Placing reliance on Clause 8(5) of the Government Order dated 12.05.2025, it is contended that the union office bearers are exempted from transfer during their tenure and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 the petitioner, being the Secretary of the Union, is a protected employee and, therefore, ought not to have been transferred. 3.4. According to the learned counsel, the transfer is malicious, colourable and brought about due to the influence of Respondent No.3. 4. Contention of respondents: 4.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been working at the present station since 18.02.2019 and has completed more than four years of tenure, thereby satisfying the minimum period prescribed under the transfer guidelines. 4.2. It is further contended that Clause 8(5) of the Government Order dated 12.05.2025 is not attracted, as the petitioner has not been transferred out of the station but has only been adjusted within the same office from one post to another. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 4.3. It is also submitted that such intra-office adjustment does not obstruct petitioner’s union activities. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services rendered by the petitioner from 18.02.2019 cannot be considered/reckoned for computing the tenure, as he was working in an in- charge capacity during that period. 6. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the order dated 18.02.2019 does not indicate that the petitioner was placed on an in-charge or officiating arrangement, and that admittedly he has been posted and working at the present station since 18.02.2019. Therefore, the contention that the said period cannot be reckoned is unsustainable. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working at the present station since 18.02.2019. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s services from 18.02.2019 cannot be reckoned is not sustainable, as an in-charge or officiating arrangement may be a temporary administrative measure; however, in the absence of any statutory rule or guideline excluding such period from consideration, the service rendered during that period is liable to be counted for the purpose of computing tenure under the transfer guidelines. Consequently, the contention that the transfer is premature cannot be accepted, as the petitioner has completed the minimum tenure of four years prescribed under Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines. 9. As regards the plea of the petitioner seeking protection under Clause 8(5) of the Government Order dated 12.05.2025, a perusal of the said provision indicates that it is intended to ensure that the elected - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 union office bearers are not transferred in a manner that prevents them from effectively discharging their union duties. In the present case, the petitioner has not been transferred to a different station or town, but has merely been adjusted within the same office and subdivision. Such an intra-office adjustment cannot be construed as a violation of Clause 8(5) of the transfer guidelines. 10. It is well settled that a transfer order can be interfered with only when mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions is established. Except for bald allegations, the petitioner has not placed any cogent material on record to substantiate his claim. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the petition. 12. Accordingly, this Court pass the following order: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:508 WP No. 104900 of 2025 ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of Merit. Pending IA’s if any stand disposed of. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46