Karnataka High Court | Transfer Of Government Employee Not Vitiated Merely For Being Based On MLA Recommendation | Transfer Is Incidence Of Service Under 2024 Guidelines
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind delivered its judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging the premature transfer of a Tahsildar. The Bench held that transfer is not a condition of service but an incidence of service and concluded that even if a transfer is made at the instance of an elected representative, such an order would not automatically stand vitiated. The Court upheld the impugned order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and confirmed the transfer notification, thereby rejecting the writ petition.
The matter arose out of a challenge to an order dated 30 January 2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Bengaluru, in Application No. 02/2025. The petitioner, serving as Tahsildar Grade-I at Bangarpet, Kolar District, questioned the Tribunal’s decision to uphold a government order dated 31 December 2024 transferring him and posting another officer, respondent No. 4, in his place.
The petitioner was appointed to Bangarpet Tahsildar’s office pursuant to a notification dated 31 July 2024. Soon after his posting, a show-cause notice dated 22 August 2024 was issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner regarding his absence during an official inspection. The petitioner responded that he was on field duty, and his explanation was accepted, closing the matter.
Subsequently, during a Bagar Hukum Committee meeting held on 28 November 2024, certain differences reportedly arose between the petitioner and the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Bangarpet Constituency. The MLA later addressed a letter dated 13 December 2024 to the Revenue Minister, alleging complaints from the public against the petitioner and requesting his transfer while recommending the posting of the fourth respondent in his place. Acting upon the said request, the Government issued a notification on 31 December 2024 transferring the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, while posting the fourth respondent in his position.
Aggrieved by the transfer, the petitioner filed Application No. 02/2025 before the Tribunal, where an interim stay was initially granted on 3 January 2025. However, upon final consideration, the Tribunal dismissed the application on 30 January 2025, upholding the transfer. It was against this dismissal that the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that his transfer was premature, arbitrary, and in violation of the Government’s transfer guidelines dated 25 June 2024, which provided for a minimum tenure of two years for Group-A officers. He argued that he had not even completed six months at his post when the transfer order was issued. The petitioner further submitted that the order was issued solely at the behest of the local MLA and not in public interest.
The petitioner’s counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam and Others (2003) 11 SCC 740, to argue that transfers effected at the instance of legislators warrant judicial interference. He also referred to State of Mysore v. P.R. Kulkarni and Others (1973) 3 SCC 597, contending that the order of transfer suffered from malice in law. It was further argued that transfer guidelines prohibited transfers based merely on complaints without a proper enquiry, as such action would amount to a punitive measure.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that the transfer was necessitated due to public grievances stated by the MLA. It was stated that the Chief Minister had approved the transfer in terms of Clause 5(3) and 5(4) of the Government order dated 25 June 2024, which permitted transfers in exceptional cases or upon receipt of serious complaints, subject to approval by the Chief Minister. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others (2007) 8 SCC 150, which held that transfer at the recommendation of an MLA would not automatically invalidate such orders if complaints existed against an official.
Supporting the State’s position, counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the petitioner had been provided with another posting within the same district and that no prejudice or hardship would be caused. It was argued that no government servant has a right to remain in a particular post and that transfer is only an incidence of service.
The High Court heard the contentions of all parties, examined the writ petition materials, and perused the note sheet relating to the transfer notification.
The Court observed that the central issue was whether interference was warranted in the impugned transfer order and the Tribunal’s confirmation of the same. Justice S.G. Pandit, delivering the opinion of the Bench, stated: “The transfer is not a condition of service and transfer is an incidence of service as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Varadha Rao v/s State of Karnataka and Others (1986) 4 SCC 131.”
The Court noted that the State Government had laid down transfer guidelines under its order dated 25 June 2024, which carried statutory force as recognized in earlier judgments such as Chandru H.N. v. State of Karnataka and Others [2011 (3) KLJ 562] and S.N. Gangadharaiah v. State of Karnataka ILR 2015 KAR 1955. The Court cited Clause 5(3) and Clause 5(4) of the guidelines, which permitted transfers for special or exceptional reasons with the Chief Minister’s approval, and in cases where prima facie serious complaints were received against a government servant.
It was recorded that: “A reading of the above clauses make it abundantly clear that due to special or exceptional reasons, transfer could be considered with the approval of the Chief Minister. It is also clear that, where a complaint of serious nature is received against a government servant...the transfer could be considered beyond the period of General Transfers.”
The Court took note that the petitioner was posted on 31 July 2024 and was transferred on 31 December 2024, a tenure of only five months. While acknowledging that the transfer was premature, the Court stated that the MLA, as a representative of the people, had conveyed complaints from the public regarding the petitioner’s conduct. The records, including the note sheet, demonstrated that the transfer was based on these complaints and was approved by the Chief Minister.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in Mohd. Masood Ahmad, the Bench reiterated: “Even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order...there can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case.”
The Court further stated: “When the people express their grievances before their representative, it is the duty of the representative of people to request for transfer of such government servant and the State Government, certainly within its jurisdiction, could transfer such a government servant.”
Addressing the petitioner’s allegations of malice in law, the Court held: “As could be seen from the records, the petitioner’s transfer is not on the basis of earlier show-cause notice or his reply. Further the allegation of malice in law has no basis.” It also found that the reliance on P.R. Kulkarni and Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi was misplaced as the factual matrix in those cases did not align with the present circumstances.
Finally, the Court observed that since the petitioner was transferred within the same district, no hardship or prejudice had been caused.
The Division Bench concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. The judgment stated: “For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.”
The Court made it clear that the petitioner was holding a transferable post and was liable for transfer. The approval of the Chief Minister, as required under the guidelines, had been obtained. The complaints forming the basis of the transfer were duly considered, and the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the transfer did not warrant interference.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Reuben Jacob, Additional Advocate General along with Sri. V. Shivareddy, Additional Government Advocate; Sri. Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for Sri. Kapildev C. Ullar, Advocate
Case Title: Sri S. Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3612/2025 (S-KSAT)
Bench: Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind
