Karnataka High Court Directs NWKRTC To Frame Employee Transfer Guidelines Within Three Months
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, directed the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to formulate transfer guidelines for all categories of employees, including Class-IV staff, within three months, and held that until such guidelines are put in place, any transfer made on administrative grounds must be a speaking order containing reasons. The court set aside the transfer of a driver-cum-conductor from one division to another, finding the order arbitrary and devoid of reasons, particularly since the employee was the only person among 44 transferred without having made any request.
The petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor in the North West Road Transport Corporation on a temporary basis by Government Order dated 30 May 2006. His services were later absorbed and regularized on 12 October 2012 after successful completion of probation. He continued to serve at Athani Depot, Chikodi Division, for over thirteen years without any adverse record.
On 30 November 2024, a transfer order was issued moving him from Chikodi Division to Belagavi/Khanapur Division on administrative grounds. The order included 43 other employees who had sought transfers on request, but the petitioner was the only one transferred without making such a request. A subsequent movement order dated 2 January 2025 directed his relieving from Chikodi Division.
The petitioner contended that the transfer was arbitrary and unsupported by reasons, highlighting that employees are governed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. He argued that transfers on administrative grounds must be sparingly resorted to and accompanied by reasons. The respondents maintained that the transfer was valid under administrative powers and submitted Circular No.1565 dated 29 April 2015 as governing guidelines.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti recorded: “Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-IV employee working in the Corporation at Chikodi Division from the last 13 years. It is not the case of the respondent/Corporation that usually there are general transfers of the Class-IV employees.”
The Court stated: “As per the order impugned dated 30.11.2024, along with 43 employees, who had sought for transfer on request, the petitioner is transferred. In the said transfer list, the petitioner is the only person, who did not make any request for transfer.”
It was observed: “Even assuming that there is an administrative reason behind his transfer, the transfer order should contain the reasons and the petitioner cannot be singled out. Except the petitioner, no other employee is transferred on administrative grounds.”
The Court noted: “The Circular, which the learned counsel for the Corporation is relying on, applies to the request transfers and the impugned order does not even contain any reasons as to why the petitioner is transferred and what are the reasons and exigencies.”
On the respondents’ contention, the Court recorded: “The submission of learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that, as the petitioner has already joined Belagavi Division, nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition and he cannot question the said order, has also no legs to stand.”
The Court stated: “The petitioner being an employee of Respondent/Corporation, when transfer order is passed, he has no other option but to join the transferred place. But it would not disentitle the petitioner from questioning the action.”
Further, the Court observed: “Transfer of employees is a vital administrative tool for ensuring efficiency, integrity and smooth functioning of the Institution. However, when transfers are made arbitrarily or without uniform standards, they lead to dissatisfaction and the allegation of malafides.”
The Court recorded: “Unfortunately, the Corporation do not have transfer guidelines in place. The transfer guidelines provide a structured framework that ensures fairness and transparency in decision making. The scope of arbitrariness is significantly reduced.”
Finally, the Court stated: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the respondent/Corporation is arbitrary without any basis, hence, the same is liable to be set-aside, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, who is at Sl.No.15.”
The Court directed: “The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the transfer order dated 30.11.2024 vide Annexure-A bearing No. Sam. Va. KaraSa/Keka/Sanchar/Adalita/3723/2024 and movement order dated 02.01.2025 in No. Sam/VaKaraSa/ChiVi/Sibbandi/C-6/1898/24, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, who is standing at Sl.No.15 in the transfer order.”
Also Read: EPF Penalty For Delayed Contributions Cannot Fall Below 25% Of Arrears: Karnataka High Court
“The respondent/Corporation shall formulate the transfer guidelines, even in case of Class-IV employees within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Till such Circulars or transfer guidelines are in place, whenever a transfer is made on administrative grounds, the transfer order shall contain the reasons and necessarily be a speaking order. All I.A.s in this writ petition shall stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Raghuveer R. Sattigeri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Prashanth S. Hosmani, Advocate
Case Title: SHRI. CHANDRAKANTH Y.TORAVI v/s THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & Ors
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC-D:858
Case Number: WP No. 100194 of 2025
Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
