Dismissed

Sri K S Sudhakara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WA/1146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench appeal against a Single Judge order quashing a KSPCB transfer order. The Court held that Transfer Guidelines 2024 govern deployment too; the Explanation cannot override substantive minimum tenure protections. Premature transfer of a Group-B officer without Clause 7 circumstances violated the guidelines; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order quashing the transfer order dated 15.07.2024 insofar as respondent No.3 was affirmed.

Sri K S Sudhakara Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 1146 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI K. S. SUDHAKARA, S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, SARJAPURAA, NISARGA BHAVAN, 3^RD FLOOR, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SANEGORAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560079.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M. K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, 4^TH FLOOR, GATE No.2, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶19

2 . THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARISARA BHAVAN, 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR, No.49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

3 . SRI H. R. PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. H. S. RAMEGOWDA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KSPCB, SARJAPURAA, NISARGA BHAVAN, 3^RD FLOOR, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SANEGORAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE A/W MS. RASHI SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No. 19154/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION No. 19154/2024 FILED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT HEREIN, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE

¶27

N. V. ANJARIA

¶28

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶31

This intra-court appeal by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.19154 of 2024 is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2024.

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. M. K. Prithveesh for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. A Mahesh Choudhary for respondent No.2 and learned Senior advocate Mr. D. R. Ravishankar on behalf of learned advocate Mr. R. Siri for respondent No.3.

¶33

Brief facts

¶34

Respondent No.3-writ petitioner joined the services of respondent No.2-The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Board) as Assistant Environmental Officer in the year 2003, later promoted as Deputy Environmental Officer in the year 2019 and posted on transfer as Environmental Officer at Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, under order dated 06.03.2023.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶36

The appellant joined respondent No.2-Board as an Assistant Environmental Officer in May 1999 and was later promoted to the cadres of Deputy Environmental Officer in April 2010 and Environmental Officer in October 2019. The appellant was posted at the Head Office in Bengaluru.

¶37

Respondent No.2, by the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 Annexure-D, transferred respondent No.3 as Environmental Officer to Head Office, Bengaluru and the appellant as Environmental Officer to Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru.

¶38

Respondent No.3 questioning the Office Memorandum (transfer order) preferred Writ Petition No.19154 of 2024, contended that the transfer is premature and in violation of transfer guidelines. The appellant filed a detailed statement of objections asserting that the transfer of respondent No.3 from the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to the Head Office, Bengaluru, is not a transfer. It was contended that transfer guidelines framed by the State are not applicable, as it is the case of deployment.

¶39

Learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.07.2024, set aside the transfer holding the same in contravention of Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶41

Submissions

¶42

Sri M.K. Prithveesh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 is the order of deployment as per Transfer Guidelines 2024, dated 25.06.2024. The appellant's transfer from the Head Office, Bengaluru, to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, cannot be termed a transfer. Respondent No.3 has been posted from the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to the Head Office, Bengaluru. By virtue of the posting, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to respondent No.3.

¶43

8.1. It is further submitted that the transfer in question is only a deployment. Transfer guidelines define 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. It is submitted that the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are made inapplicable to deployment by an Explanation to 'Deployment'.

¶44

8.2. It is further stated that the English version of Transfer Guidelines 2024 differs. In other words, it is submitted that in the Kannada version, it is clear that transfer guidelines are not applicable in case of deployment. Whereas, in the English version, though it is stated that deployment was not to be considered as transfer, the inapplicability of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 in the

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶46

case of deployment is missing. Further, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge, by referring to the English version of the explanation, has held that the transfer in question is in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶47

8.3. Learned advocate further submits that posting of respondent No.3 from Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to Head Office, Bengaluru is a case of Deployment and Transfer Guidelines 2024 are not applicable. When transfer guidelines are not applicable, requirements to record reasons are not necessitated.

¶48

8.4. Learned advocate in support of his submissions relies on the following judgments,

¶49

(i) Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993 (4) SCC 357,

¶50

(ii) Sri Dinesh Kumar G.T. vs. The State of Karnataka and other in Writ Petition No.2491 of 2022, dated 23.02.2022,

¶51

(iii) Smt. H.S. Veena vs. The State of Karnataka and other connected matters in Writ Petition No.24786 of 2023 and connected matters, dated 22.01.2024,

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶53

(iv) Sri Suresh S. vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition No.17591 of 2024, dated 26.07.2024.

¶54

8.5 Learned advocate by relying on the above judgments contends that ordinarily, the Court may not interfere in the order of transfer unless such transfer suffers from mala fides and in violation of the statutory provisions. Further submits that when the transfer is within the same city, no hardship is caused, and the transfer is justified.

¶55

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. D. R. Ravishankar, appearing for respondent No.3, submits that Transfer Guidelines 2024 are applicable even in the case of deployment. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 mandate that transfer/deployment shall be made by the competent authority subject to the conditions in the transfer guidelines.

¶56

9.1. It is submitted that the minimum tenure of service protected under the transfer guidelines is equally applicable to deployment. It is submitted that posting from one office to another office even in the same urban area would amount to transfer and such transfer shall be only as per the Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶58

9.2. It is submitted that respondent No.3 was transferred as Environmental Officer to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, under Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. Respondent No.3 is Group-B Officer. Respondent No.3 is entitled to a minimum tenure of posting of two years.

¶59

9.3. It is further submitted that any transfer/posting resulting in a reduced term of two years shall be only in the circumstances stated in Clause 7 of Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶60

9.4 It is submitted that the Transfer Guidelines 2024 has statutory force. The transfer of respondent No.3 violates Transfer Guidelines 2024, thereby in breach of statutory provisions. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable and the learned Single Judge was justified in entertaining the same.

¶61

9.5. Lastly, it is submitted that the State Government by letter dated 06.08.2024 and respondent No.2 by Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2024 have given effect to the order of learned Single Judge by continuing the place of posting of the appellant and respondent No.3 as existed before the impugned Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024. The State and Respondent No.2

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶63

have not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. Insofar as respondent Nos.1 and 2, the order of learned Single Judge has reached finality. In such circumstances, the present writ appeal renders academic and infructuous.

¶64

9.6 Leaned Senior Advocate in support of his submissions relies on the following judgments of this Court in,

¶65

i) H.N. Chandru vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2011 Kar. 1585,

¶66

ii) S.N. Gangadharaiah K.A.S., vs. the State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2015 Kar. 146.

¶67

9.7 Relying on the above judgments, learned Senior Advocate contends that earlier transfer guidelines in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 and 22.11.2001 are held to have statutory force. The present Transfer Guidelines 2024 in Government Order dated 25.06.2024 issued in supersession of Government Order dated 07.06.2013, has statutory force. Thus, prays to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶68

Sri A. Mahesh Choudhary, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the transfer of a government servant

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶70

need not be in the situation stated in Clause 3 of Transfer Guidelines 2024. In other words, it is submitted that transfer of a government servant can be for any other reasons as may be necessary.

¶71

10.1. Learned advocate further submits that the posting of respondent No.3 from Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru to Head Office, Bengaluru is only deployment, the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are not applicable. It is submitted that as transfer guidelines are not applicable, no reasons are assigned for transfer. It is submitted that the posting of respondent No.3 to Head Office, Bengaluru within the same urban area would not create any hardship or inconvenience to the government servant.

¶72

Analysis

¶73

The transfer of government servant is regulated through the guidelines framed by the State Government. Earlier, the transfer was guided by a Government Order dated 22.11.2001. The guidelines were framed for the transfer of government servants as per the recommendations of the Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission.

¶74

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶75

In order to provide minimum tenure of posting and to bring in more transparency and accountability, 2001 Transfer Guidelines were revised. In supersession of 2001 Transfer Guidelines, the revised guidelines were issued in a Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The preamble to Government Order dated 07.06.2013 reads as under,

¶76

“ It is now found expedient to regulate the transfer of Government servants ensure their continuance in a post for a reasonable period so that they get real exposure the activities of the department and deliver the results/ outcomes as envisaged. Further, as per the recommendation of the Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission. It is aimed to bring in more transparency, accountability in administration. More over, for uniform distribution of Personnel throughout the State for effective functioning of the Government, it is felt necessary to issue fresh general orders regulating the transfer of Government servants.”

¶77

The State Government revised guidelines under Government

¶78

Order dated 25.06.2024 in supersession of Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 regulates the transfer of government servants from 2024 to 2025. The guidelines deal with 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'.

¶79

The relevant Clauses are is extracted for immediate perusal,

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶82

“ 2. Explanation :- In this order, unless the context otherwise requires:

¶83

(1) .......

¶84

(2) “ Transfer” means posting of a Government servant from a post to take up duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or in a case where the office of a department /field department/ commissionarate/directorate, other office in an existing headquarters is changed and the office shifted to another headquarters.

¶85

(3) “Deployment” means posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area.

¶86

Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be considered as those of transfer. This also includes deployment of Government servants belonging to the Karnataka Government Secretariat Service from one department of the Secretariat to another department.

¶87

3. Process of transfers : Transfers/ deployment shall be made by the competent authority subject to the conditions stipulated in this order, mainly, in the interest of public service in a transparent manner.

¶88

6. Minimum period of stay at a place :-

¶89

(1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred / deployed if he has not completed period of service at a place as stipulated below:-

¶90

13 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶92

Sl. No.	Cadre	Period of service (Inyears)
(1)	(2)	(3)
1.	All Group–A Posts	2 years
2.	All Group–B Posts	2 years
3.	AllGroup–CPosts	4years
4.	AllGroup– D Posts	7years

¶93

The administrative departments of the Secretariat may, in respect of a post in the departments under them, issue orders revising / prescribing, from time to time, with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the minimum period for which a Government servant may render service in such a post.

¶94

(2) The Government servants, who have been appointed against various vacant posts in the local cadres and residuary cadres in the offices located in HyderabadKarnataka region shall not be transferred outside the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for a period of ten years from the date of their appointment.

¶95

7. Premature / Delayed Transfers :

¶96

(1) The Minimum period of service which a Government servants may render at a place may be extended or reduced in the following circumstances:-

¶97

(a) A Government servant, who has completed the maximum period of stay at a place and due for transfer, has less than two years of service for retirement.

¶98

(b) A Government servant possesses special technical qualification or experience and no suitable Government servant is immediately available for being appointed to such a specific post to replace him.

¶99

(c) Where an employee is working in a Central Government Project or a flagship project, the implementation of which is at an important stage and withdrawal of his services is likely to seriously stall timely completion of that project.

¶100

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶101

(d) 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, subject to availability of vacancy, even if one of them has not completed the minimum period of stay.

¶102

(e) If a Government servant is an office-bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, he shall not be transferred until the completion of his term as that office-bearer.

¶103

(f) If a Government servant or his / her spouse or children are suffering from serious or terminal ailments and the facility of medical treatment is available at a place and he produces a certificate in that regard issued by the Medical Board.”

¶104

The Transfer Guidelines 2024 deal with 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. The narrow dispute is whether the Transfer Guidelines 2024 apply in case of “deployment”. It is made clear that the analysis of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 in this order is only in relation to deployment.

¶105

According to learned Advocate for the appellant, the explanation to "Deployment" in English version is not true translation of Kannada version. According to the learned Advocate, true translation in the officially translated guidelines and as per the learned advocate is as follows,

¶106

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶107

As per Government Order	As per learned advocate the appellant	for
Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be	Explanation: The cases deployment shall not	of be
considered as those of	considered as those	of
transfer. This also includes	transfer. These Trans	fer
deployment of Government	Guidelines will not	be
servants belonging to the	applicable in cases	of
Karnataka Government	deployment.
Secretariat Service from one department of the Secretariat to anotherdepartment.

¶108

The comprehensive reading of Transfer Guidelines 2024, it regulates the transfer of government servants even as “deployment”. It is difficult to accept that Transfer Guidelines 2024 ought not applicable to deployment. It is trite law that the Explanation cannot be used as a interpretation tool to understand the scope and ambit of the substantive law. If the Explanation is to be given preference to interpret the Transfer Guidelines 2024, it would act as an exception to the substantive law, which is not the scope of Explanation. The Explanation in no way explains the substantive law, however runs contrary to the substantive law.

¶109

Clause 6 of the guidelines provides for a minimum tenure of posting to a government servant at a place. The minimum period of tenure varies to different group of officers. This Court is

¶110

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶111

concerned with Group-B Officers. The minimum period of tenure at a place for Group-B Officers is two years.

¶112

Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables premature/delayed transfers. In other words, Clause 7 would be an exception to Clause 6. Clause 7 empowers the government to extend or reduce the period of posting at a place to the government servant, however, in the circumstances provided therein.

¶113

Respondent No.3 was transferred to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, as Environmental Officer under Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. As per Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent No.3 has the protection of a minimum posting period at a place for two years. There is no dispute that the appellant and respondent No.3 are Group-B Officers. It is not in dispute that no reasons have been recorded for premature transfer of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have neither placed any material nor contend that the premature transfer of respondent No.3 is in the circumstances contemplated under Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. It is the categorical statement of the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 that no reasons are being recorded.

¶114

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶115

The learned advocate for the appellant would submit that posting a government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters in an urban area is not a transfer and is deployment. He submits that as per the explanation in Kannada version, the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are made inapplicable to deployment. The transfer guidelines are not applicable in the present case. The submission of learned advocate for the appellant is appealable at the first blush. However, it is difficult to accept the contentions on examination of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 to the fullest extent.

¶116

The Transfer Guidelines 2024 provides a minimum period of tenure at a place to a government servant in case of transfer or deployment. The Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 refers to transfer of officers. The impugned office memorandum posting respondent No.3 from Regional Office to Head Office states "ordered to be transferred", "Details of Posting". The contention regarding the case of "Deployment" is untraceable.

¶117

As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, the transfer process, including the deployment, is mandated subject to conditions stipulated in the Transfer Guidelines 2024 and on

¶118

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶119

consideration of the interest of public servants and in a transparent manner. Clause 3 mandates the applicability of transfer conditions in the case of deployment.

¶120

Even if the contention of the appellant that it is the case of deployment is tested having regard to the guidelines, as per Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent No.3 is entitled to a minimum tenure posting at a place for two years. Respondent No.3 was transferred as Environmental Officer to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, by Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. Further transfer under Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 would abbreviate the minimum posting period of two years and is nothing but premature transfer in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶121

Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables premature/delayed transfers. Clause 7 is an exception to Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. However, Clause 7 enables the government to extend or reduce the posting period to a government servant at a place subject to the circumstances stated therein. On a conjoint reading of Clauses 6 and 7, it is clear that the government servant is protected with a minimum period of

¶122

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶123

tenure at a place, and the same can be reduced only under the circumstances provided under Clause 7.

¶124

Another aspect needs to be noticed and relevant is, the similar situation was provided in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. Clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 defines 'Transfer' and follows a Note to the definition of Transfer. The same reads as,

¶125

“(d) ‘Transfer’ means the posting of a Government servant from one headquarters to another headquarters or from one office to another within the same headquarters to take up duties of a new post or in consequence of a change of headquarters;

¶126

Note:- Movement of a Government servant within the same office/ unit from one post to another one or desk/ compilation to another one under the same head office shall not be treated as transfer.”

¶127

The Note to definition of Transfer states that movement of government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another one, or desk/ compilation to another one under the same head office shall not to be treated as transfer. The scope of ‘Note’ falls for consideration before this Court. Full Bench of this Court, in

¶128

the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra) , held that posting of a government servant from one office to another within the same

¶129

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶130

headquarters to take up the duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer.

¶131

The contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that unless the transfer is in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the transfer and violation of transfer guidelines, which are administrative instructions/ guidelines, will not enable invoking writ jurisdiction, is not acceptable. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Abbas (supra) , the Court can interfere in a transfer order when made in violation of statutory provisions. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.N. Chandru (supra) , while dealing with 2001 Transfer Guidelines and the Full Bench of this Court in the

¶132

case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra) dealing with 2013 Transfer Guidelines held that the transfer guidelines a statutory force as it is issued to supplement the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) as regards the matter that is not provided under KCSRs.

¶133

In view of the decisions of the Full Bench, the Court can interfere with the transfer order of a government servant if found in violation of the guidelines governing such transfer. However, the

¶134

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶135

interference in the transfer can only be on a case-to-case basis based on the facts.

¶136

The judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is based on peculiar facts. No principles of law have been laid down with reference to the transfer guidelines, especially in the light of the law laid down by the two Full Bench judgments of this Court.

¶137

The judgment in the case of Smt. H.S. Veena (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of this Court was in the peculiar facts involved therein. Similarly, the judgment in the case of S.Suresh (supra). Both judgments do not apply to the facts of the case.

¶138

The object of framing the transfer guidelines is extracted in the previous paragraphs from Transfer Guidelines 2013 in Government Order dated 07.06.2013. In the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated the necessity of minimum tenure of posting to a government servant. The same is as under,

¶139

22 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶140

“35. We notice, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritise various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalised sections of the society.”

¶141

The necessity of minimum tenure to a government servant if tested in the light of preamble to 2013 Transfer Guidelines and principle held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian (supra) in the facts of the present case, the transfer of respondent No.3 is premature and in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024. The transfer of respondent No.3 by way of deployment would abbreviate the minimum tenure of respondent No.3 as protected under Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. Even if the case of the appellant is considered as deployment, the movement of respondent No.3 from the Regional Office, Sarjapura,

¶142

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶143

Bengaluru, to Head Office, Bengaluru, would run counter to the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and the object of Transfer Guidelines.

¶144

In view of above discussion there is no gainsaying, and it has to be concluded that the transfer guidelines which are statutory in nature, apply both whether the shifting of the employee is termed as transfer or deployment. In the instant case, there has been violation of minimum period prescription. The view held and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge deserves to be affirmed.

¶145

Learned Single Judge has held that as per Clause 3, the deployment shall be made by the competent authority subject to the conditions in the order (Transfer Policy 2024) on satisfying two tests i.e., (a) that it must be mainly in the interest of public service and (b) that it must be in a transparent manner.

¶146

Learned Single Judge has held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were unable to justify the decision to replace the petitioner in the Regional Office in the interest of public service or transparency. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the transfer of

¶147

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶148

respondent No.3 is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 and quashed the transfer order dated 15.07.2024 insofar as respondent No.3 thereby continuing respondent No.3, as Environmental Officer at Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru.

¶149

In light of the above discussion, consideration of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, and applying judgments relied on by the respective learned advocates for the parties, the following,

¶150

Conclusion:

¶151

(i) The posting of a government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area is governed by Transfer Guidelines 2024 in Government Order No.DPAR 33 STR 2024, Bengaluru, dated 25.06.2024.

¶152

(ii) The government servant is protected with minimum tenure of posting under Clause 6 of Government Order dated 25.06.2024 in case of deployment.

¶153

(iii) The Explanation to definition “Deployment” would not override the substantive procedure mandated under Transfer Guidelines 2024.

¶154

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB WA No. 1146 of 2024

¶155

(iv) The reduction of minimum tenure posting of government servant shall be in the circumstances under Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024.

¶156

(v) The posting of respondent No.3 from Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru to Head Office, Bengaluru is against minimum tenure of posting. Hence, premature.

¶157