1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO.24786 OF2023(S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.23836 OF2023(S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO.24175 OF2023(S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO.24309 OF2023(S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO.24626 OF2023(S-KSAT) IN WP.NO.24786 OF2023(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SMT. VEENA H.S., W/O H.R.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT41YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ENFORCEMENT-5, SOUTH ZONE, 'B' BLOCK, VTK-02, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047, RESIDING AT NO.1204A, PRIDE ENCHANTA APARTMENTS, OPPOSITE BHEL, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANUSHA.L, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 2 . COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3 . SMT. AMRUTHA KITTUR, HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMISSIONER TAXES, (AUDIT48), DIVISIONAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-4, 'A' BLOCK, VTK-2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. VIJAYKUMAR V.B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE
ORDEROF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DATED2010.2023 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4160/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. IN WP.NO.23836 OF2023(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SMT. V.R.MANJULA, W/O LATE DR. BUDEPPA H.B., AGED ABOUT42YEARS, UNDER AN
ORDEROF POSTING AS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT68), DEVISIONAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-6, KIADB BUILDING, 11TH CROSS, PEENYA2D STAGE, BANGALORE-560 058. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH.K, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3 3 . SRI. APPAJI PATIL, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VIGILANCE-1, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. VIJAYKUMAR V.B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2010/2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4057/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. IN WP.NO.24175 OF2023(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SMT.PUSHPA C., W/O RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT54YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ENFORCEMENT-7, SOUTH ZONE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047, RESIDING AT NO.604, 12TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBBA REDDY.K.N, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 4 3 . SRI. M.A.NANDEESH, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT410), DIVISIONAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-4, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDERPASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No-1 DATED0409.2023 BEARING No.AaaE196VaaTESi 2023 VIDE ANNEUXRE-A IN SO FAR AS THE TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT No- 3. AND ETC. IN WP.NO.24309 OF2023(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SRI. K.S.BASAVARAJ, S/O LATE K.SHIVANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT57YEARS, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, E-GOVERNANCE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VTK-1, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH.K, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 5 3 . SRI. G.G.CHALUVE GOWDA, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, HEAD QUARTERS-2, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VTK-1, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2010.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.3873/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. IN WP.NO.24626 OF2023(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SMT. SHYLA N.C, D/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA N.R, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICE -152, TATA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 096. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH.K, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3 . SMT.M.PRAMEELA, HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, 6 WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ENFORCEMENT-19), SOUTH ZONE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047. 4 . SRI.RAHUL RANGANATHA PATEL, S/O RANGANATHA, AGED ABOUT31YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AL-19, SOUTH ZONE, ENFORCEMENT, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S.P.KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PREMKUMAR.P, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED3110.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4038/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON1412.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDERSince, common questions of law are involved in these matters, they are heard and taken up for consideration together.
2. Before proceedings to the contentions advanced by the parties, the facts relevant to the case on hand as borne out from the pleadings are as follows – 7 2.1. IN W.P.No.24786/2023 Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the Office of the 2nd respondent since her direct recruitment in June, 2012, was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (for short ‘DCCT’) from the cadre of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department vide order dated 27.09.2019 and it is in pursuance to the same, she was posted as DCCT(Audit 5.4), Divisional Goods and Service Taxes–5, Bengaluru. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.06.2022, petitioner was transferred to the place of one Sri. Appaji Patil who was working as DCCT (Enfocrcement-5), South zone, ‘B’ Block, VTK-02, Kormangala, Bengaluru and she reported for the duty at the said place on 23.06.2023. In pursuance to the same, she has worked in the said place for a period of nearly 1 year 2 months. b. In this background, an order of vice-versa transfer dated 12.09.2023 came to be passed by the respondent-State transferring the petitioner to the place that is fell vacant, post transfer of one Smt. Amrutha Kittur, i.e., DCCT (Audit 4.8), Divisional Goods and Service Tax–4, ‘A’ Block, VTK–02, Koramangala. Consequently, respondent No.3 was posted to the place of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in A.No.4160/2023, on the ground of it being premature and dehors 8 the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 and the Tribunal after hearing the parties to the lis, vide order dated 20.10.2023, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner. Calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. c. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has reported to the current place-in-question pursuance to the Government Transfer Notification dated 22.06.2022 and learned Senior counsel also stresses upon Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and submits that petitioner being a Group ‘A’ Officer, is in a righteous position to hold lien over a post for a period of two years from the date of transfer and subsequent reporting for duty and in the case on hand, the petitioner has been displaced from the current place-in-question within the period of nearly one year and two months, which is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri. N. Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka and Ors in W.P.No.33158/2017 decided on 28.07.2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph No.12 of the Order held as under:- “12. There seems to be certain logic in limiting the power of the State to transfer a person prematurely. The Transfer Policy has been issued in order to control the wide powers of the State in transferring an employee on the one hand, and in giving a sense of security to the employee on the other hand. Since the vast power of transfer can be abused by the State, it may play havoc with the lives of the people. Thus, it was imperative that the wide power 9 should not be an unfettered power, but should be cribbed, cabined and confined within certain well known parameters. Thus, the transfer policy prescribes a procedure to be followed. Needless to say, once a procedure is established by law, the same must be followed by the State.” d. Relying on the same judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Senior counsel would further contend that respondent No.3 was posted as DCCT (Audit 4.8), Divisional Goods and Service Tax–4, ‘A’ Block, VTK -02, Koramangala vide order dated 09.12.2021. When the Transfer Notification dated 09.12.2021 is juxtapose the impugned Transfer Notification, he would submit that the transfer of the respondent No.3 to the current place-in-question is also premature and unwarranted. An argument is also advanced by the learned Senior counsel that the impugned Transfer Notification passed is dehors Rule 7(iii) of the Transfer Guidelines supra as the same is made without obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister. e. Further, the learned Senior counsel vehemently places his reliance on the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. M. Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC Online Kar 3777, wherein, paragraph No.6 of the Order speaks as under –
6. As could be seen from para 9 of the Government Order extracted above, premature/delayed transfer of Government servants is permitted in the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) with the prior approval of the 10 Chief Minister. It requires the competent authority to record reasons stating as to how the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order to warrant premature/delayed transfer of a Government servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in para 9(b) of the Government Order. After perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, only then the Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature/delayed transfer of the Government servant. If prior approval is given by the Chief Minister for transfers not falling under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, it will be invalid in law and any premature/delayed transfer made pursuant thereto will be illegal and hence is liable to be set aside.” Relying on the above decision, he submits that the current impugned Transfer Notification if carefully perused and even analyzed, no specific and cogent reasons are forthcoming from the impugned order passed by the respondent-State as to why such impugned transfer is affected at the cost of petitioner’s rights that accrues on the footnote of Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and he further submits that, the Co-ordinate Bench in M. Rajashekhar’s case supra has also categorically held that, in order to prematurely disturb the Government servant from a particular post, the same shall bear reasons as specified under Rule 9(a)(i) to (Viii) of said Transfer Guidelines and it is on this ground, he submits that, the impugned Transfer Notification being made without specifying such reasons, is perverse and unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court. 11 f. Additionally, learned Senior counsel relying on the office notings made available to this Court submits that, the State had initially placed the name of the respondent No.3 to the place of petitioner herein and subsequently, a Tippani came to be inserted in the office noting on the basis of which the petitioner is now being displaced from the place-in-question. He further contends that, prior-approval of the Chief Minister is obtained only in respect of the respondent No.3 is concerned and the name of the petitioner is inserted subsequently through office notings in the records and the same cannot be considered for the reason that, there was no prior approval for the same which is quid pro quo to the office notings that are placed for approval. g. Learned Senior counsel also negating the veracity of office notings would vehemently submit that the Secretariat- respondent No.1 has not adduced any cogent reasons in the Tippani as mandated under Rule 9(b) of the Transfer Guidelines supra, so as to enable the Chief Minister to know the reasons for premature transfer. In the absence of the same, he submits that the impugned Transfer Notification vitiates from the procedure mandated under law. h. Negating with the opinion narrated by the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion mentioned supra, learned Senior counsel would submit that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact 12 that, it is not only the petitioner who has been working in a particular place for a considerable period, but also the respondent No.3 herein is working in Bangalore for more than 7 years. He further contends that when the earlier Transfer Order of the petitioner has remained unchallenged, it is inadmissible and unwarranted to consider the past service of the petitioner and the tenure should only be calculated from the date the petitioner has been transferred to current place-in-question i.e., from 21.06.2022 onwards would submit that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the said aspect and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. i. He further contends that among the total of 151 posts of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, around 98 posts are existing in Bangalore itself. Such being the circumstance, it may be of Lex Non-Cogit Ad Impossiblia to expect that the Government servant shall be working in different places and shall not work in a particular post for a considerable length of time. j. On the above grounds, he prays for an order quashing the impugned Transfer Notification dated 12.09.2023 by confirming the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in M. Rajashekar’s case supra. k. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 favouring the action of the respondent-State submits that the case 13 on hand is hit by the principles of suppressio veri and suggestion falsi and submits that petitioner is working in the Bengaluru since 2013 i.e., as - (cid:1) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) DGSTO-3, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru from 2013-2018 (cid:1) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes- LGSTO-30,DGSTO-1, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru from 2018- 2019. (cid:1) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in DGSTO-5,DCCT(Audit), Koramangala, Bengaluru from 2019-2022 (cid:1) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes –Enforcement-5, South Zone, Koramangala, Bengaluru from 2022-2023. Under the circumstances, he submits that though the petitioner has worked in the current place-in-question for a period of One year Two months only, but the same cannot be considered in isolation for the reason that, he has tendered his service in different posts in the same place for nearly 10 years and as such, the tenure amounts to continuation to his earlier postings, though the petitioner has worked in different posts. He places his reliance on order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in M.S. Purushottam reddy vs State of Karnataka and Ors in W.P.No.20158/2015 decided on 01.06.2015 and Shri C Madhu vs Secretary, Public Works Department and Ors in W.P.No.51992/2015 decided on 14 25.11.2015. On these grounds, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that when Rule 9 of Transfer Guidelines supra is read with the settled position so also the fact narrated hereinabove, in itself, is the sufficient cause to effect the transfer as against the petitioner herein and moreover, the same is made after obtaining the prior-approval of the Chief Minister. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. l. Learned AAG appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placing the records pertaining to the petitioner and respondents contend that, the impugned Transfer Notification is passed after obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Minister on 12.09.2023. He places his reliance on approval letter/Tippani dated 08.09.2023 and also the office notings dated 12.09.2023, which bears the signature of the Chief Minister in this regard. 2.2 In W.P.No.23836/2023 Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the office of the 2nd respondent since her direct recruitment dated 30.06.2006, was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in January, 2015 and thereafter she was again promoted to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department in December, 2020 and it is in pursuance to the same vide order dated 08.12.2020, she was posted as DCCT (Audit 1.3), Divisional Goods and Services Taxes–1, Bangalore. Subsequently, 15 by an order dated 22.06.2022, petitioner was transferred to the place of one Sri. Vijaykumar M Bhathad who was working as DCCT (Vigilance-1), Bengaluru and she reported for the duty at the said place on 23.06.2023. In pursuance to the same, she has worked in the said place for a period of nearly 1 year 2 months. b. In this background, by a common Transfer Notification dated 04.09.2023, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of respondent No.3 herein i.e., as DCCT (Audit 6.8) Divisional Goods and Service Taxes-6 and respondent No.3 was transferred to the place of the petitioner. The name of respondent No.3 and the petitioner finds place at Sl.Nos.26 and 27 of the impugned Transfer Notification respectively. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in A.No.4057/2023, on the ground of it being premature and without assigning the cogent reasons. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2023, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner and calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. c. Learned Senior counsel has vehemently opposed the impugned action of the respondent-State on a similar contention as addressed by the learned Senior counsel in W.P.No.24786/2023. Additionally, he contends that, records now made available to this Court discloses the name of the petitioner in part II of the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 and the reasons for such transfer 16 is mentioned in Point No.2 of the same impugned order which, if read carefully would mean that, the current transfer is affected as against those Deputy Commissioners of the Department who are either repatriated or waiting for posting and on this ground, he submits that the reasons assigned in the impugned Transfer Notification is bad in law, as the reasoning mentioned therein does not apply to the petitioner herein. He also submits that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that, it is not only the petitioner, but also the respondent who has been working in Bangalore since, 2013. d. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 relying on the decision in M S Purushottam Reddy’s Case and C. Madhu’s case supra submits that the petitioner worked as DCCT in the city of Bengaluru itself, from 08.12.2020 to 23.06.2022 and from 23.06.2022 to 04.09.2023 for successive period and as such, the impugned Transfer Notification now passed, cannot be said to have been vitiated on it being premature. As this Court has already held through various decisions that no Government employee can be allowed to hold office in the same place for considerable period as the same creates a door for the Government Servant to develop vested interests in the said place, thereby defeating the public interests. Moreover, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that respondent No.3 is at the verge of his superannuation 17 holding balance of 10 months of service as on the date of filing the application before the Tribunal. He relying on Rule 9(a)(i) of the Transfer Guidelines supra and C. Vasudeva vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR2015KAR4513submits that the respondent-State has rightly transferred respondent No.3 within the limits of Bangalore, keeping in view his short tenure left before attaining superannuation. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. e. Learned AAG placing the original records pertaining to the impugned Transfer Notification submits that the said transfers are affected in the interest of public and administrative exigencies, keeping in view the employees who are waiting for posting and also those who are repatriated back to the parent department. He further immersing this Court pertaining to the Government records now made available would submit that the impugned Transfer Notification is passed after prior-approval of the Chief Minister. Further, reiterating the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, he submits that the impugned order is passed keeping in view the earlier tenure of the petitioner and such being the scenario, it cannot be said that the impugned Transfer Notification does not satisfy the vigour’s of Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. On these grounds, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materials made available before it and the 18 interference from this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not called for. 2.3 In W.P.No.24175/2023 Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the Office of the 2nd respondent since her direct recruitment in February, 1997, was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in July, 2006 and further she was again promoted to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department in September, 2019 and further when she was posted as DCCT (Audit 1.10), Divisional Goods and Services Taxes–1, Bangalore by an order dated 20.12.2022, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of one Smt. K.S Suvarna who was working as DCCT (Enforcement-7), South Zone, Koramangala, Bengaluru and she reported for the duty at the said place on the same day i.e., on 20.12.2023. In pursuance to the same, she has worked in the said place for a period of nearly 10 months. b. In this background, by a common Transfer Notification dated 04.09.2023, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of respondent No.3 herein i.e., as DCCT (Audit-4.10) Divisional Goods and Service Taxes–6 and respondent No.3 was transferred to the place of the petitioner. The name of respondent No.3 and the petitioner finds place at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of the impugned Transfer Notification respectively. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the 19 Tribunal in A.No.4043/2023, on the ground of it being premature and without assigning the cogent reasons and the Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2023 was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner and calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. c. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed his primary reliance on M. Rajashekhar’s case supra and has contended that the impugned action of the State is in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court, as the same has displaced the petitioner within 09 months of her being posted to the current place-in-question, which is premature on the face of the record and he also submits that, no cogent reasons as mandated under Rule 9 (a)(i) to (viii) is forthcoming in the impugned order to effect such premature transfer of the petitioner. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition by setting-aside the findings of the Tribunal. d. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 adopting the same defence as in the connected case submits that the petitioner in the present case is working in Bangalore and in the same building since 10 years and he further submits that, the petitioner has worked as DCCT (Audit 4.5), DG570-04, Koramanagala, Bengaluru for a period of 4 years and as DCCT (Audit 1.10), DGSTO-01 for a period of 6 months, before she was 20 transferred to the current place-in-question. It is on these grounds, relying on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in M.S. Purushottam Reddy’s case supra he submits that, the petitioner being put in service for a considerable period in the city of Bengaluru itself, cannot now claim the current transfer to be premature. On these grounds, he prays to confirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal. e. Learned AAG placing the original records pertaining to the impugned Transfer Notification submits that the said transfers are affected in the interest of public and administrative exigencies and also keeping in view the employees who are waiting for posting and also those who are repatriated back to the parent department. He further immersing this Court pertaining to the Government records now made available would submit that, the impugned Transfer Notification is passed after prior-approval of the Chief Minister. Further, reiterating the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 he submits that the impugned order is passed keeping in view the earlier tenure of the petitioner is concerned and such being the scenario, it cannot be said that the impugned Transfer Notification does not satisfy the vigour’s of Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. On these grounds, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materials made 21 available before it and the interference from this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not called for. 2.4 In W.P.No.24309/2023 Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the Office of the 2nd respondent since his direct recruitment on 21.02.1997, was promoted to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department in June, 2007. Subsequently, he was again promoted to the cadre of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department in September, 2015 and subsequently, when he was posted as Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance), Bangalore, by an order dated 22.06.2022, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of one Sri. Ramesh Kumar who was working as Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance), Bangalore. Further, by an order dated 20.12.2023, the petitioner came to be promoted as Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, pursuant to which, he was posted as Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Head Office-2, Office of the Commissioners, Bengaluru. Since then, petitioner has worked in the said place for nearly 10 months. b. In this background, by a common Transfer Notification dated 25.08.2023, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, E-Governance, Bangalore and respondent No.3 who was working in the post of 22 Additional Commissioner of Commercial taxes, Zone-2, Bangalore was transferred to the place of petitioner. The name of respondent No.3 and the petitioner finds place at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of the impugned Transfer Notification respectively. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in A.No.3873/2023, on the ground of it being premature and without assigning the cogent reasons, the Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2023, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner and calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. c. Learned Senior counsel has addressed the common arguments in this case along with W.P.No.23836/2023 and has urged that, the impugned Transfer Notification is bad in law and liable to be quashed on the ground of it being passed prematurely, without obtaining the prior-approval of the Chief Minister and also without specifying cogent reasons as mandated under M. Rajashekara’s Case supra. He also submits that the present transfer is a triangular transfer and the same will affect the smooth functioning of the department. He further pleads that, it is a peculiar case where not only the transfer of the petitioner, but also the transfer of respondent No.3 is premature and without assigning cogent reasons for effecting such transfers. d. Though none appeared for respondent No.3, we find that respondent No.3 has contested the case before the Tribunal 23 and has filed his statement of objection viz, Annexure-D Page No.79 to the writ petition, wherein respondent No.3 adopting the same defence as in the connected case has contended that the petitioner in the present case is working in Bangalore, since 07 years and he further contended that, initially when the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of DCCT, he has worked in Bangalore till 03.09.2007 and again when petitioner was promoted as Joint Director, he has worked in Bangalore itself and respondent No.3 further contended that pursuant to petitioner’s subsequent promotion as Additional Commissioner of commercial Taxes, he was again posted in Bangalore to the current place-in-question and as such, when the petitioner has spent his entire tenure in Bangalore itself, relying on the law laid down by this Court in M.S. Purushottam Reddy’s case supra, respondent No.3 has contended that the impugned order, if read, along with the service records of the petitioner, is an order passed after following all the mandates mentioned under the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. On these grounds, respondent No.3 has oppugned the contentions of the petitioner before the Tribunal. e. Learned AAG placing the original records pertaining to the impugned Transfer Notification submits that the said transfers are affected in the interest of public and administrative exigencies. He further immersing this Court to the Government records, now 24 made available would submit that, the impugned Transfer Notification is passed after obtaining prior-approval of the Chief Minister. Further, reiterating the contentions of respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, he submits that the impugned order is passed keeping in view the earlier tenure of the petitioner is concerned and such being the scenario, it cannot be said that the impugned Transfer Notification does not satisfy the vigour’s of Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. On these grounds, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materials made available before it and the interference from this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not called for. 2.5 In W.P.No.24626/2023 Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the Office of the 2nd respondent was appointed by way of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide dated 16.06.2020 and pursuantly, post her recruitment, her probation period came to be declared as satisfactory and subsequently vide order dated 22.06.2022, she was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Local Goods and Services Taxes–152, Bangalore and she has taken charge in the said place vide CTC dated 24.06.2023. Further, the petitioner has worked in the current place-in-question for a period of nearly 1 year 2 months. 25 b. In this background, by a common Transfer Notification dated 04.09.2023, petitioner came to be transferred to the place of one Sri. Santhosh Kiragi., who was working as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Service Analysis Wing-1), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore. Respondent No.3 herein has been posted to the place of petitioner and respondent No.4 has been posted to the place of respondent No.3. It is in this inimical background, both petitioner and respondent No.3 knocked the doors of the Tribunal in A.Nos.4038/2023 and 4103/2023, questioning the correctness of the impugned Transfer Notification on the ground of it being passed prematurely and without adducing proper reasons as mandated under the Transfer Guidelines supra, before obtaining the prior- approval of the Chief Minister. Tribunal vide common order dated 31.10.2023 was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein and calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner who was the applicant in A.No.4038/2023 has approached this Court. c. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has addressed common arguments in this case along with W.P.No.23836/2023, on the ground of it being premature and without assigning any reasons as mandated under the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M. Rajashekhar’s Case supra and he further submits 26 that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the grievance of the petitioner herein on the ground of impugned Transfer Notification being made in the interest of public and administrative exigencies. Even though, this Court has time and again held that, when a premature transfer is affected, the same shall bear reasoning contemplated under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines supra. He would further submit that when respondent No.3 who has been posted to the place of the petitioner has also challenged the impugned Transfer Notification, there arises no requirement to transfer the petitioner and also respondent No.3 to the place of the petitioner prematurely. d. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has reported to the duty in the place of respondent No.3 herein on 03.11.2023 pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal and he also submits that the said impugned Transfer Notification that is now being implemented was passed after obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Minister and the same was made in the interest of public and administrative exigencies. Learned Senior counsel also further submits that the impugned Transfer Notification being a common transfer order passed transferring nearly 100 Government employees of the different cadres of the same department and the same was implemented keeping in view the public interest. When things stands thus, if the 27 impugned Transfer Notification is interfered with, then the same would hamper the very functioning of the entire Department so also the interest of the public at large. Nevertheless, he submits that both the place where the petitioner was working and the place where the petitioner is being posted is located within the Bangalore itself and also within the same headquarters only. As such, he submits that there is no prejudice or hardship or inconveniences caused to the petitioner, so as to call-in-question the legality of the present impugned order. e. In order to substantiate his contention learned Senior counsel has relied upon the below decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court – (cid:1) B.Varadarao Vs State of Karnataka reported in AIR1986SC1955 (cid:1) Shilpibose and Ors vs State of Bihar Ors reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC659 (cid:1) Union of India & Ors Vs L Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC357 On these grounds, learned Senior counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. f. Learned AAG by placing government records pertaining to the petitioner, third respondent and fourth respondent herein submits that the impugned Transfer Notification is passed keeping 28 in view the public interest so also the administrative exigencies. He also contends that the impugned Transfer Notification passed only after the prior-approval obtained by the Chief Minister and as such, he further submits that the impugned order is passed keeping in view the service tenure of the petitioner in Bangalore before declaration of the probationary period of the petitioner. He also submits that Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materials made available on record and passed the impugned order and accordingly, he submits that the interference in the order passed by the Tribunal is not called for. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the below decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court– (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC435 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) Sk. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, reported in (2022) 12 SCC1 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) C. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1620.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. V. Laxminarayana for Smt. Anusha L., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24786/2023, learned Senior counsel Sri. M.S.Bhagwat for Sri. Sathish K., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 29 23836/2023, 24309/2023 and 24626/2023 and learned Senior counsel Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy for Sri. Subba Reddy K.N., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24175/2023 so also learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar for caveator/respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos. 24786/2023, 23836/2023 and 24175/2023, learned Senior counsel Sri. S.P. Kulkarni for Sri. Premkumar P., learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4 in W.P.No.24626/2023 similarly, the Learned AAG Sri. Reuben Jacob for Sri. V. Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondents in all the connected matters. We have also bestowed our anxious and particularised consideration to the pleadings, so also the records made available to this Court at the time of hearing.
4. The primary limb of the argument as advanced by the petitioners in these matters are that the petitioners are being prematurely displaced from the posts-in-question and also there are no cogent reasons forthcoming as mandated under the Transfer Guidelines dated 06.07.2013, in order to prematurely disturb the petitioners from the posts –in-question. In order to substantiate the same, we find it relevant to refer to the provisions of Rule 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2023 which reads as under – “Rule No.5 - Restriction on transfer - The Competent Authority shall ensure that the number of Government servants transferred/deputed in any year is kept to the barest minimum and 30 ordinarily, the number of Government servants transferred / deputed in any year shall not exceed six percent of the total working strength of the cadre in that particular unit of seniority. Transfers/deputations should be done in such a way that no Government servant should remain on compulsory waiting. Rule No.7 - The transfers should not be considered beyond the month of June except in the following circumstances by the competent authority - i. Where transfer/deputation of a Government servant is considered instead of placing him under suspension. ii. Where new offices/posts are created or posts have fallen vacant due to retirement, promotion, resignation, reversion, dismissal, death, compulsory retirement or when a direct recruit is to be posted on his first appointment or a promotee has to be posted on promotion or due to any unforeseen circumstances and when the posts are required to be filled immediately; iii. Where the transfer is necessitated in particular cases, only due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, restricting the number of such annual transfers to minimum after recording reasons for the same in writing. Such cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister without fail and transfer shall be made after obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister. iv. The facility of mutual transfer / deputation shall be extended to the Government servant only once in his service and v. Where prima facie a complaint of serious nature is received or leveled against a Government servant to the satisfaction of the Head of the Department after ascertaining that Articles of charges/Charge sheet have been issued to him or permission has been given for his prosecution in a competent Court of Law. Rule No.8 - Minimum period of stay at a place:
31. No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred / deputed if he has not completed his tenure of posting in a place, as indicated below:- No.Cadre Number of years All Group-A1 2 years (as per posts amendment dated All Group-B1410.2015) 2. posts 3 years (as per All Group-C3 amendment dated posts 26.05.2014) All Group-D4 7 years posts The minimum period of stay for a particular post may be prescribed / revised from time to time by an order by the Administrative Departments of the Secretariat, with the prior approval of the Chief Minster, in respect of certain types of sensitive cadres in the departments coming under their administrative control, depending upon the nature of duties assigned to the post. Rule No.9 - Premature/delayed Transfer a. Generally there should be no premature transfers. The tenure of posting of a Government servant may be extended or reduced by the Competent Authority in the following cases after recording the reasons for the same in writing. The minimum period of stay at a place as prescribed in para 8 can be reduced and the concerned Government servant transferred prematurely if the competent authority feels that he or she is not suitable for discharging the duties at the present place and the reasons are recorded to this effect in writing:- i. The employee due for transfer after completion of tenure at a place or posting or post has less than two years of service for retirement: ii. The employee possesses special technical qualifications or experience for the particular job for which a suitable replacement is not immediately available; 32 iii. The employees working on a project or Flagship programmes of Government of India which are in the crucial stage of implementation and his withdrawal will seriously jeopardize timely completion of such projects: iv. Where both the spouses are Government servants and if one of the spouses is transferred, then the other spouse may also be transferred to the same place or nearby place depending upon the availability of vacancy even if one of them has not completed the minimum period of stay; v. Where a female Government servant is a widow/spinster/unmarried divorcee, she may be transferred and in case she is appointed for the first time, may be posted to a place of her choice subject to availability of vacancy; vi. Where a Government servant is an office- bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association only, such Government servant shall not be transferred until the completion of the term for which he has been elected. In case no elections are held within three months of the completion of the said term, he may be transferred. In case he is reelected, he may be continued in the same place until the completion of the second term only. vii. Where Government servant is physically handicapped / challenged or disabled subject to certification by the Medical Board; viii. Where Government servant or his/her spouse or children are suffering from serious or terminal ailments, depending upon the availability of the facility of medical treatment at the requested place subject to certification by the Medical Board; b. However, before effecting any premature transfers and for making any transfer after the transfer period, and also for extending the tenure of a Government servant for the reasons stated above, prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister 33 must be obtained without fail by the concerned Administrative Department of the Secretariat. The Principal Secretaries/ Secretaries to Government should not under any circumstances issue transfer orders and later seek ratification/ post facto approval of the Chief Minister.” (Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) 5. On careful perusal of these provisions which has been declared to have the statutory force by virtue of the judgements passed by the Full Bench of this Court in H.N. Chandru vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2011 (3) KLJ562and in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah vs. State Of Karnataka reported in ILR2015KAR1955is concerned, Rule 5 of the Transfer Guidelines supra, specifies that, every Government servant who has been transfer and posted to a particular place shall be allowed to work in the said place for a minimum tenure prescribed which is mandated under Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines, before him being considered for transferred again. The proviso, though creates a right in favour of the Government servant but Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 7 provides an accreditation to the respondent-State to transfer the Government servant if there arises a need or exigency or dunkirk. Provided, the rule also specifies that, such orders can only be called de jure when these orders bear a proper reasoning, so also a prior approval accorded by the Chief Minister post perusal of the reasoning so accorded is concerned. Further, Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines prescribes the minimum tenure period of Government 34 servant to work in a particular place where he is been posted, wherein, a right is effectuated to every Group ‘A’ Officer (in the present case all the petitioners and private contesting respondents belong to Group ‘A’ cadre), to hold a particular post where they have been transferred for a minimum period of two years by virtue of amendment to Transfer Guidelines, 2013 dated 14.10.2015. Further, such right that is effectuated is withered away in Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines which prohibits the respondent-State to carry out premature transfer. They can only carry out the same, subject to according reasons as mandated under the Rule 9 (a) (i) to (viii) of the Transfer Guidelines and obtaining the prior-approval of the Chief Minister. Further the question circumspecting the anomalies of the Rule 9 which gives a prerogative right to the respondent-State to prematurely transfer, was placed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajashekar M. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3777. The specific question that fell for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench was that – “1. Whether the Chief Minister has absolute discretion under Government Order No.DPAR22STR2013 Bangalore, dated 07.06.2013 to give prior approval for premature/ delayed transfers referred to in para 9 thereof ?.” which was answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the negative and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that – 35 “6. As could be seen from para 9 of the Government Order extracted above, premature/delayed transfer of Government servants is permitted in the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) with the prior approval of the Chief Minister. It requires the competent authority to record reasons stating as to how the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order to warrant premature/delayed transfer of a Government servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in para 9(b) of the Government Order. After perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, only then the Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature/delayed transfer of the Government servant. If prior approval is given by the Chief Minister for transfers not falling under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, it will be invalid in law and any premature/delayed transfer made pursuant thereto will be illegal and hence is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State of Karnataka fairly submitted that prior approval of the Chief Minister was not preceded by recording of any reasons by the Competent Authority to show that the premature transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.4 would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order. Hence, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of transfer as it was contrary to para 9 of the Government Order laying down guidelines for transfer of Government servants.” (original emphasis supplied) 6. It is on this legal footing, the petitioners are before this Court and jostling this Court that the impugned Transfer Notifications does not bare any reasons as cogitated under provisions of Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines and the Tribunal has erred in not noticing the same while passing the impugned Order. 36 The petitioners also contend that this Court being consistent in holding the cases of premature transfers in the line of Rajashekar M’s case supra cannot now turn its back on the petitioners, only on the ground that the transfers are in bulk and if intervened, would affect the public interest.
7. The arguments addressed antithetical to the arguments of the petitioners by the respondents was that the transfers made, which are now being called-in-question in the current writs, cannot be termed as premature transfers, as all the petitioners have rendered their services in the same place for more than their minimum tenure. It was also contended by the respondents that, some of the petitioners have not only worked in the same place for a considerable period, but also in the same building for a considerable period of more than their minimum tenure. In order to enunciate this contention addressed by the respondents, we now ponder upon the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.S. Purushottam reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors in W.P.No.20158/2015 decided on 01.06.2015 wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with similar question in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has held as under – “11. From the above facts, it is clear, since the date of appointment i.e. from 01-06-1995 till 18-07- 2000, he had been working as FDA at District Training Institute, Kolar. From 19-07-2000 till 30-06- 2011 he had been working as FDA in the Office of the DDPI, Kolar. From 30-06-2011 till 11-02-2013, he 37 was working as FDA in the Office of District Training Institute, Kolar and again from 11-02-2013, till now he has been working in the Office of the DDPI, Kolar. So, from the date of appointment till day, he has been working in one or the other office situated at Kolar only and he has never gone out of Kolar since the date of his appointment. Further, under the present transfer order, he is transferred from the Office of the DDPI, Kolar to the Government High School, Mudderi in Kolar taluk. Thus, he is transferred from Kolar town to a village Mudderi situated within Kolar taluk. As per the latest Government order dt. 20-05-2014 relating to transfer of Government officials, minimum period of stay in respect of Group `C’ officials is two years. Even if that is taken into consideration, the applicant was transferred from the Office of the District Training Institute, Kolar, to the Office of the DDPI, Kolar, on 08-02-2013 and he worked there till now. By the time the present transfer was made on 08- 01-2015, which is yet to be given effect to, he has completed two years at the previous place. It is not only the applicant who has been working in one or the other Office located at Kolar, since the date of his appointment, his wife has also been working in an Office situated at Kolar, as could be seen from the statement of objections of the respondents. Further under the transfer order – Annexure A.2, the applicant is transferred from Kolar town to a village Mudderi situated within Kolar taluk only and there is no merit in the any of the contentions of the applicant.
12. The Tribunal considering the above material aspect of the matter was justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner and declining to interfere with the transfer orders – Annexure - A.2 and A.4.” (Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) If the cases on hand is juxtapose the findings of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, it is quite clear that, even the petitioners in these writ petitions have worked for multiple tenures in the same place i.e., in the city of Bengaluru. Though, they may have worked in the different capacity during their tenure, but it is 38 not in dispute that the petitioners have worked in Bengaluru for more than one tenures. To further articulate, we deem it necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC178 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.8,9 and 15 held as under –
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC402:
2005. SCC (L&S) 55]. , SCC p. 406, para 7).
9. The Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC659:
1992. SCC (L&S) 127 : AIR1991SC532 this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para
4) “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order 39 instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.
15. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of Respondent 5 was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules. The transfer of Respondent 5 was not found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and suitability of Respondent 5 for such posting. It is here that the High Court fell into a grave error. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the High Court casts stigma on the service of Respondent 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks."
(Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is now a settled position that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to be remained in the same post where he desires. The decision also further articulates that any Government Servant who is holding a transferable post also cannot seek as a matter of right, to remain in the same place where he is earlier posted. The position is further enunciated by this Court in Sri. N. Venkatesh Vs The State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No.23998/2023 decided on 12.12.2023, wherein this Court in paragraph No.12 has held as under – “12. The Petition on hand is one that lays down challenge to legality of impugned Transfer Notification dated 13.10.2023. The petitioner who was working as Senior lecturer in DIET, Bengaluru 40 City was transferred from the current place-in- question vide impugned Transfer Notification supra, has challenged the said transfer order, on it being premature and without posting. To answer the first limb of the argument advanced by learned Senior counsel, we deem it necessary to refer to Annexure- R1 to the interim application filed by the respondent No.3, which displays the service tenure of the petitioner. The petitioner was initially posted to DDPI Office, Bangalore South on 06.04.2002 and he has served in the said place till 27.08.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Karnataka Public School admittedly to a nonexecutive post on 08.08.2011 till 30.11.2011 and again he has served in the DDPI Office, Bangalore South from 01.01.2013 till 11.08.2016. Further, he was again posted as Block Education Officer, Bangalore South on 02.08.2016 wherein he has held the office till 13.08.2016 and subsequently, he was posted to DIET on 04.08.2018 and subsequently, he has reported to place-in-question on 24.06.2022. Admittedly, among 7 postings in Bangalore South, he has worked in 5 posts as Executive Officer and it is well-settled principle through various decisions of this Court that any officer is permitted to grow roots by placing him in different post but in one place, then he shall develop vested interest in the said place and if that is made, the same will ultimately hamper the very intention and object of transfer itself. (See – M.S.Purushottam reddy vs State of Karnataka in W.P.No.20158/2015 decided on 01.06.2015, C.Madhu Vs Stat of Karnataka & Ors decided on 25.11.2015 and Sri. G.B. Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No.22499/2022 decided on 16.11.2022). Hence, we are prima facie not in concurrence with the submission made by the learned Senior counsel that the impugned Transfer Notification passed is premature on the part of the petitioner is concerned, as it is evident that the petitioner is in Bangalore South since 2002 and the same cannot be brushed aside while considering the legality of this impugned order.” (Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) Further this Court in Sri. K.M. Prashanth Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No.21643/2023 decided on 20.12.2023 relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in 41 Rajendra Singh’s Case supra in paragraph No.17 has held as under – “17…….On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that no employee of the Government can claim a right over a post or a right to be posted to a particular place. Incidents of transfer, flows through the service conditions of the employees. Moreover, the very object of transferring a Government employee is to make sure that the employee should not grow roots in the said place or should not develop any vested interest in the said place or even the post where he is being transferred. This Court reiterating the versions of the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches, has on numerous occasions opined that, any person who has served in a place for a continuous period of more than what is prescribed by the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, shall be transferred to some other places. If not, the chances of him developing vested interest in the said place is more than usual and the same would defeat the very purpose of transfer itself….” (Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) 8. Furthermore, on thorough perusal of the decisions of this Court in M.S.Purushottam Reddy’s Case, N. Venkatesh’s Case and K.M.Prashanth Kumar’s case supra and are also if exhaustively read, then this Court has clearly clarified that any person who is being posted in a particular place, cannot be allowed to continue in the same place for more than the tenure which is prescribed upon. If done, then the chances of him growing roots and also vested interest are more probable then definite. In this legal background, if the case of the petitioners are to be considered keeping in view the findings recorded in Rajasehkar M’s case supra, then it would be difficult for the State Government to refer 42 to each and every individual and assign the reasons stipulated as against their transfers. Moreover, in a given peculiar circumstances of the case on hand, we find it relevant to state that Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines cannot be read in isolation the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, as the same, if read in conjuncture with the very principles and object of the Transfer then the present transfer seems to be one that is covered under the ambit of Rule 9(a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. Hence, it is on this ground we opine that, under peculiar circumstances, like the case on hand, it is not mandatory for the respondent-State to script the reasons as contemplated under Rule 9 (a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer Guidelines supra, provided the same shall be reflected in the records that are made available before obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. In the present case on hand, if the impugned Transfer Notifications are read along with the service records of these petitioners, then it can be clearly seen that the petitioners are holding one or the other post in one place itself for considerable period. Such being the scenario, we find no requirement to interfere with the order of the Tribunal so also the order passed by the respondent-State, as Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material made available before it and has held that, the respondent- State has passed the impugned Transfer Notification in the interest of General public and administrative exigencies. Accordingly, we hold the primary contention raised as against the petitioners. 43
9. In the second limb of the argument, learned Senior counsels for the petitioners contend that the impugned Transfer Notification is passed without obtaining the prior-approval of the Chief Minister. In reply to the contention urged, learned AAG has placed the Government records before this Hon’ble Court and we find that there is a prior-approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister before passing the impugned Transfer Notification in case of the all the petitioners and respondents in W.P.Nos.23836/2023, 24175/2023, 24309/2023 and 24626/2023. In case of the petitioner in W.P.No.24786/2023, learned Senior counsel has vehemently contended that, the name of the petitioner has been added post obtaining prior-approval of the Chief minister by a subsequent note/Tippani. On perusal of the records pertaining to the petitioner is concerned we find that, before the file was put up for consideration before Chief Minister, it was already noted that the respondent No.3 is proposed to be transferred to the place of the petitioner. Hence, when the name of the petitioner has already found place in the impugned Transfer Notification, it cannot be presumed that the Chief Minister has signed the document without knowing the details of it. Accordingly, further proceedings in the records clearly depicts that, the transfers of the petitioner was made pursuant to prior-approval accorded by the Chief Minister. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, we find it relevant to mention that, when an order of transfer is made in bulk, it cannot be said 44 that the department is mandated to place detailed reasons for transfer of each and every public servant provided, the same shall be forthcoming when read in conjecture with their service records. Hence, we are not in congruence with the contention put forth by the petitioners.
10. This Court has also heard the learned Senior counsels for the petitioners on the law laid down by the Apex Court in negating the interferences of political pressures in transfer of Government servant is concerned, but has failed to impress upon this Court by adducing cogent materials to discuss on the same.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal so also the impugned Transfer Notifications and the Tribunal has rightly interpreted that the impugned Transfer Notification is necessitated one in the interest of public. Accordingly, for the discussions made hereinabove, all the writ petitions stands dismissed. Registry is directed to return the records made available to this Court to learned AGA after obtaining necessary acknowledgment in this regard. 45 This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research & assistance rendered by Official Law Clerk/Research Assistant, Mr. Shreedhar Ganapati Bidre. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HKV