Sri. Gous Inamdar, Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

WRIT PETITION NO. 20894 OF 2025 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 18506 OF 2025 (S-TR) WRIT PETITION NO. 18644 OF 2025 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 18579 OF 2025 (S-TR) WRIT PETITION NO. 20693 OF 2025 (S-TR)

¶10

IN WP No.18588/2025:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. GOUS INAMDAR S/O LATE YAKUB INAMDAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Location: HIGH NORTH WEST - 2 SUB – DIVISION COURTOF BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD KARNATAKA PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058 R/ AT NO. 66, 6TH CROSS SRIGANDHANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE- 560 091 (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD

¶16

REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560 006.

¶21

THE PERSONNEL MANAGER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 006.

¶22

SRI. TEJAS H. B. WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH - 2 - 2 SUB – DIVISION THINDLU, SAHAKARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 092

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B L SANJEEV.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/06/2025 BEARING NO. BWSSB CHAD/EST-13/258/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-G), IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶25

IN WP NO.20894/2025

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. THEJUS H.B. S/O DR. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH WEST 2, SUB DIVISION BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD PEENYA BENGLAURU 560 058 R/AT NO. 508, 2ND C MAIN, 11TH BLOCK

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 072.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADV.,)

¶34

AND:

¶35

BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 006.

¶36

THE PERSONNEL MANAGER

¶37

BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 006.

¶38

GOUS INAMDAR

¶39

S/O LATE YAKUB INAMDAR

¶40

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶41

WORKING AS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TECHNICAL ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, (KAVERI AND MAINTENANCE) DIVISION, CAUVERY BHAVAN, R/AT 66 6TH CROSS, SRIGHANDANAGAR SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE 560091.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R1 & R2: SRI. SATISH K, ADV., C/R3)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.21-06-2025 BEARING NO. BWSSB/CHAD/EST-13/237/25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE C TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶46

4 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

IN WP NO. 18506/2025:

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

SRI. L. HARIKUMAR S/O G. R. LAKSHMINARASIMHIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (WEST)-2-2, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR SMT. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADV., & SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADV.,)

¶53

AND:

¶54

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 006.

¶55

THE PERSONNEL MANAGER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 006.

¶56

SMT. KEERTHANA K. UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS A TECHNICAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH WEST) - 1, WEST OF CORD ROAD 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, BANGALORE 560 086.

¶57

...RESPONDENTS

¶58

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. KASHINATH J.D, C/R3)

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/06/2025 BEARING NO.BWSSB CHAD/EST-13/ 237/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-D), IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶62

IN WP NO. 18644/2025:

¶63

BETWEEN:

¶64

SMT. KIRTHANA .K W/O K.M. RAVI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WEST -2-2, BWSSB, 5TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU 560 072 R/ AT VRUDDI NILAYA, 1ST B MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS , VINAYAKA LAYOUT MEDARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 090. ...PETITIONER

¶65

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D. ADV.,)

¶66

AND:

¶67

THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 09 REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY.

¶68

THE PERSONAL MANAGER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶69

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

SRI. HARIKUMAR .L MAJOR WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRESENTLY WORKING AS TECHNICAL OFFICER AT THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (DIVISION) (NORTHWEST-1) WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE BEHIND MODI HOSPITAL, BENGALURU 560 086.

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR SMT. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADV., A/W SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADV., FOR R3 )

¶74

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. BWSSB CHAD/EST-13/258/2025 DATED 25.06.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AS ILLEGAL AND SUFFERS FROM MALAFIDES IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶75

IN WP NO. 18579/2025:

¶76

BETWEEN:

¶77

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .R S/O LATE RAJAGOPALA .D AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTH WEST 4 SUB – DIVISION BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD BANAGIRI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560 085 RESIDING AT NO. 29, BRUHATHI NILAYA KPTCL LAYOUT, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT GUBLALA, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE 4TH H BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 061

¶78

...PETITIONER

¶79

(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADV.,)

¶80

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

AND:

¶83

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560 006.

¶84

THE PERSONNEL MANAGER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 006.

¶85

SMT. NANDINI K. R. WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT K AND T VALLEY SUB – DIVISION KADUBEESANAHALLI STP OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR MARTHAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶86

...RESPONDENTS

¶87

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R1 & R2: SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. DIVYATEJ H N, ADV.,FOR R3)

¶88

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/06/2025 BEARING NO. BWSSB CHAD/EST-13/258/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE -D), IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶89

IN WP NO. 20693/2025:

¶90

BETWEEN:

¶91

SMT. NANDINI K.R. W/O DR. V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED 32 YEARS

¶92

AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶93

8 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTH WEST 4 SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD BANAGIRI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085. R/AT VKNS GREEN ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR JNANABHARATHI ROAD, MARIYAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU- 560056.

¶97

...PETITIONER

¶98

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. DIVYATEJ H.N. ADV.,)

¶99

AND:

¶100

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CAO

¶101

AND SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR

¶102

CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560006.

¶103

THE PERSONNEL MANAGER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560006.

¶104

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA R S/O LATE RAJAGOPALA AGED 44 YEARS

¶105

WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTH WEST 4 SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD BANAGIRI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085.

¶106

(AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER ORDER DATED 21.06.2025 AND THE OFFICIAL

¶107

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

MEMORANDUM DATED 07.07.2025).

¶110

...RESPONDENTS

¶111

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. SATISH K, ADV., FOR R3)

¶112

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM OF TRANSFER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY IN NO. BWSSB CHAD/EST13/237/2025 DATED 21.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN NO. BWSSB/ADMN/CCM/3/2025-ADMN DATE 07-07-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-J & ETC.

¶113

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶114

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶115

ORAL ORDER

¶116

All these petitioners are the employees of the Respondent – Board. WP Nos.18588/2025, 18644/2025 and 18579/2025 are filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of transfer order, dated 25.06.2025 passed by the second respondent, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, ‘the Board), cancelling the earlier transfer order, whereas, W.P.Nos.20894/2025,

¶117

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

18506/2025 and 20693/2024 are filed challenging the

¶120

transfer order dated 21.06.2025.

¶121

Sri Kashinath J.D., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.18644/2025 has raised the following contentions:

¶122

(i) Firstly, under Section 88 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (for short, ‘1964 Act’), the Board has a power to issue guidelines or regulations in respect of the service conditions of the employees. By exercising that power, the Board issued the transfer guidelines by way of a notification, on 15.06.2017. In that, it is very specifically mentioned that, the same is subject to modification of the Government transfer policy.

¶123

(ii) Secondly, in terms of the Notification issued by the Board dated 18.10.2024, the Board has adopted the Government Transfer Policy dated 12.05.2025, wherein, for Group-A post is concerned, the tenure is for a period of two years.

¶124

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

Sri Sathish K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.18588/2025 submitted that, once the transfer order has been given effect to, it can be cancelled only after giving proper reasons and also only under certain circumstances, which is explained in the transfer guidelines. The impugned cancellation order is passed without giving any reasons and contrary to the transfer guidelines. In support of his contention, he relied on the orders passed by two Division Benches of this Court in W.P.No.2661/2020, disposed of on 29.07.2020 and W.P.No.104179/2021 disposed of on 05.01.2022. Therefore, he contended that the cancellation order is unsustainable.

¶127

Sri P.P.Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.20693/2025 and the third respondent in WP No.18579/2025 raised the following contentions:

¶128

(i) Firstly, the Board, invoking the power under Section 88 of the 1964 Act, has issued the transfer

¶129

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

guidelines - Notification dated 15.06.2017. From the above Notification, it is very clear that, the tenure of Group-A employee of the Board is for a period of three years. The said Notification is in force as on today. The Circular dated 18.10.2024 is for adopting the KCSRs., Rules, Regulations and other Circulars in respect of the service conditions where the Board has not framed any Rules. Since the Notification dated 15.06.2017 is existing, the transfer policy issued by the Government dated 12.05.2025 is not applicable. Therefore, the tenure for the Group-A is only three years.

¶132

(ii) Secondly, the transfer order passed by the Board is contrary to the transfer policy. All transfers are premature. Therefore, to set right the anomaly, they passed the cancellation order on 25.06.2025. Since the transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer guidelines, that itself is the reason for cancellation. Therefore, there need not be any other reason for cancellation of the transfer order.

¶133

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

(iii) Thirdly, the petitioner in W.P.No.20693/2025 has been prematurely transferred. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation on the ground that her one year old child is suffering from serious illness. Considering the reply, the Board passed the cancellation order. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the transfer order is passed without recording any reason.

¶136

Sri Vivek Subbareddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.20894/2025 and the respondent in W.P.No.18588/2025 has raised the following contentions:

¶137

(i) Firstly, the transfer order passed by the Board is in violation of the transfer guidelines and the Board has passed a premature transfer order.

¶138

(ii) Secondly, the third respondent, i.e., Gouse Inamdar in W.P.No.20894/2025 vide Annexure-E, was transferred on 16.06.2025 as Technical Assistant to CE Kaveri, O & M, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. Thereafter, one more transfer order has been passed on 21.06.2025

¶139

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

vide Annexure-C, where he has been transferred to AEE North-West 2, Peenya. After passing the transfer order dated 21.06.2025, he has taken charge as Technical Assistant to CE Kaveri, O & M, Cauvery Bhavan. Because of all these irregularities, the cancellation order has been passed. Therefore, these are the main grounds for passing the cancellation order.

¶142

Sri R.Subramanya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18644/2025 has raised the following contentions:

¶143

(i) Firstly, under the Notification dated 15.06.2017, there is no provision for the Board to adopt the Government transfer policy as and when the Government modifies the transfer policy. The Notification issued by the Board dated 15.06.2017 is in force as on today. The tenure of the Group-A employee of the Board is for a period of three years. The Circular dated 18.10.2024 is only applicable to the service conditions of the employees, where there is no Rules or regulations issued by the

¶144

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

Board. Since the Board has already issued a Notification on 15.06.2017, and as on today the same is in force, now, they cannot say that the tenure of the Group-A employee is for a period of two years.

¶147

(ii) Secondly, since the transfer order passed by the Board is premature, to set right the anomaly, the Board has issued the cancellation order in the administrative exigency.

¶148

Sri B.L.Sanjeev, the learned counsel appearing for the Board has raised the following contentions:

¶149

(i) Firstly, by exercising the power under Section 88 of the 1964 Act, the transfer guidelines - Notification dated 15.06.2017 has been issued by the Board. In the Notification dated 15.06.2017, it is specifically mentioned that the Board has adopted the Government transfer policy, as it is, subject to some modifications and also submitted that there is a clause in the Notification of the Board dated 15.06.2017 that, whenever the Government

¶150

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

changes the transfer policy, the same will be applicable to the Board. Accordingly, on 18.10.2024, the Board has taken a decision and passed an order that, in respect of service conditions of the Board employees is concerned, the Rules, Regulations and Circular issued by the Government is applicable, as it is, including the transfer. As per the transfer guidelines issued by the Government dated 12.05.2025, the tenure of the Group-A employee is for a period of two years. He further submitted that, to that effect, the Board has also filed an affidavit.

¶153

(ii) Secondly, the cancellation order passed by the Board dated 25.06.2025 is due to administrative exigency. Even though the file has not contained any reason, when the order is passed for an administrative exigency, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere. This Court has very little scope for judicial review. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHILPI BOSE

¶154

vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC

¶155

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

659 and contended that a court cannot interfere with the transfer order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reason.

¶158

(iii) Thirdly, all the transfers have been made within the headquarters.

¶159

Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the petition papers.

¶160

The questions that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are:

¶161

(i) Whether the guidelines issued by the Board dated 15.06.2017 are applicable or the transfer guidelines issued by the Government on 12.05.2025 is applicable?

¶162

(ii) Whether the cancellation order passed by the Board dated 25.06.2025 is sustainable in law?

¶163

Under Section 88 of the 1964 Act, the Board may, with the previous approval of the State Government make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, in respect of the duties of the

¶164

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶165

18 -

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

officer and servant of the Board and their salaries, allowances, and control over other conditions of service. It is relevant to extract Section 88 of the 1964 Act.

¶168

“88. Regulations.— (1) The Board may with the previous approval of the State Government make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

¶169

(a) the administration of the funds and other property of the Board and the maintenance of its accounts;

¶170

(b) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Board and the times and places at which such meetings shall be held, and the conduct of business thereat and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum;

¶171

(c) the duties of officers and servants of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service;

¶172

(d) the fine which may be imposed for the breach of any bye-law, which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in case of continuing breach the additional fine which may extend to five

¶173

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶174

19 -

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

hundred rupees for every day, during which the breach continues after receipt of a notice from the Board to discontinue the breach.

¶177

(e) the procedure to be followed by the Board

¶178

in inviting, considering and accepting tenders;

¶179

(f) any other matter arising out of the Board’s functions under this Act in which it is necessary or expedient to make regulations.

¶180

(2) The power to make regulations under this Act is subject to the condition of previous publication.”

¶181

From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Board has a power to issue regulations, with the approval of the Government, in respect of the service conditions of the employees. In exercise of that power, the Notification dated 15.06.2017 was issued. From this Notification, it is evident that the Board adopted the transfer guidelines issued by the Government, in 07.06.2013 with certain modifications. For this purpose, a Committee of five officers of the Board was constituted which suggested the guidelines for transfer. It is also

¶182

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

recommended that, in future, any modification made to the Government Circular, could also be adopted.

¶185

As per the Notification dated 15.06.2017, the tenure of the Group-A employee was fixed at three years. A plain reading of the Notification dated 15.06.2017, makes it clear that the Board has the authority to adopt the transfer policy time to time issued by the Government. Further, from the Notification dated 18.10.2024, it is evident that the Board, adopted Karnataka Civil Services Rules and other Rules, Regulations and Circulars issued by the Government. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Board filed an affidavit, stating that, under the Notification dated 15.06.2017, it is bound to adopt the transfer policy issued by the Government from time to time. The transfer policy issued by the Government dated 12.05.2025 modified the tenure of the Group-A employees from three years to two years. Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that the applicable tenure of Group-A Employees of the Board is two years.

¶186

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶187

HC-KAR

¶188

In respect of cancellation of the earlier transfer order dated 25.06.2025 is concerned, it is undisputed that neither the transfer order itself nor the file produced by the Board, discusses any reason for cancellation. It is also undisputed that the transfer order had already been implemented. The employees have taken charge in the place where they have been transferred. Once the transfer order is given effect to, its cancellation or modification, requires a reason. The Division Bench of this Court in WP No.2661/2020 held as follows:

¶189

“18. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to stipulate the requirement of disclosing specific reasons for issuing orders for modification or cancellation of transfers with a further requirement that the degree of detail/specific reasons would increase with each subsequent modification/cancellation of transfer order, issued prematurely. This would not stifle the power of the executive to transfer officials in exceptional circumstances, but at the same time, the disclosure of reasons would ensure accountability to the public is being served. Such a measure would also act as a check on the transfers being effected on the

¶190

22 -

¶191

NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶192

HC-KAR

¶193

requests made by officers to particular posts that too repeatedly, as in the instant case. Moreover, the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government to regulate transfers of government servants in the State are statutory in nature and binding on the State Government. They cannot be blatantly flouted to appease any government servant nor can they be ignored while accepting requests from officers/officials to seek postings of their choice. Such action on the part of the State Government not only demoralises the other officers who are consequently displaced prematurely but also generates litigation before the Tribunals/Courts. It needs to be emphasised that no Government Servant should think that he/she can seek postings of his/her choice in blatant violation of the Transfer Guidelines. Such practice has to be deprecated.”

¶194

For transfer, modification or cancellation of transfer order, it requires a reason. Following the said order, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104179/2021 has taken the same stand. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted below:

¶195

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

“11. ……………. A perusal of the notification dated 29.02.2020 would not indicate any reasons for cancellation of earlier notification of transfer. When the notification of transfer dated 29.02.2020 was given effect to and the same was implemented the notification had spent itself. The notification was not available for cancellation as on 12.03.2020.”

¶198

Therefore, the cancellation order dated 25.06.2025 is unsustainable. In the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Board, in the case of SHILPI BOSE (supra), it is clearly held that, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless transfer orders are made in violation of mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. In the case on hand, the cancellation order is passed in violation of the statutory rules. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.GANGADHARAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (W.P.No.58375/2013 disposed of on 13.04.2015)

¶199

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶200

HC-KAR

¶201

has held that, the transfer policy issued by the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India is having a statutory force. In view of the above, the impugned cancellation order dated 25.06.2025, in respect

¶202

of the parties herein requires to be quashed.

¶203

The points for consideration are answered

¶204

accordingly.

¶205

In view of what is stated above, the following order is passed:

¶206

(i) W.P.Nos.18588/2025, 18644/2025 and

¶207

18579/2025 are allowed.

¶208

(ii) The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.18588/2025, 18644/2025 and 18579/2025 in respect of the petitioners and the third respondents, in the respective petitions, are quashed.

¶209

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶210

HC-KAR

¶211

W.P.No.20894/2025:

¶212

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.20894/2025 has raised the following

¶213

contentions:

¶214

(i) Firstly, even assuming that the tenure of the Group- A employees is for a period of two years, the petitioner has been disturbed before completion of two years. Since it is a premature transfer, it is contrary to the transfer guidelines.

¶215

(ii) Secondly, the petitioner was transferred as Technical Assistant to CE Kaveri, O & M, Cauvery Bhavan on 16.06.2025. Within five days, by the impugned order dated 21.06.2025, he has been transferred to AEE North West 2, Peenya. He has not taken charge in the transferred place as per the transfer order dated 16.06.2025 and he is in the verge of his retirement. Contrary to the transfer policy, he has been transferred.

¶216

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶217

HC-KAR

¶218

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that, the petitioner has taken charge as per the transfer order dated 16.06.2025. Further, the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 has not been challenged by any person, even though the petitioner’s transfer is premature, the petitioner is left with only two months. In support of his contention, he has relied on a Division Bench order of this Court in W.P.No.1757/2022. Hence, submits that it cannot be quashed, it can be implemented after two months.

¶219

The transfer order dated 16.06.2025 has not been challenged by any person. The impugned transfer order in this petition is dated 21.06.2025 vide Annexure-C, by which, the third respondent has been transferred to the petitioner’s place. Even though the petitioner has been transferred on 21.06.2025, he has taken charge on 02.08.2025, only 40 days remaining for completing two years tenure. Even a Division Bench of this Court in

¶220

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶221

HC-KAR

¶222

W.P.No.1757/2022 disposed of on 22.02.2022 has held as

¶223

follows:

¶224

“8. The learned counsel for the applicant would fairly admit that the applicant would complete his tenure on 05.03.2022. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that the proposed place of transfer being within a communicable distance and there being no serious prejudice or hardship caused to the applicant in terms of dislocation of family or himself and the proposed transfer of the applicant being just a couple of months shy of the period contemplated under the Guidelines, we deem it appropriate to direct that the order of transfer be made effective from 07.03.2022.”

¶225

Even though the transfer order has been passed on 21.06.2025, in view of the interim order, he has taken charge on 02.08.2025. Therefore, during that period the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits. Since it is only 40 days left for completion of two years, in view of the above judgment, it does not require for quashing.

¶226

Accordingly, W.P.No.20894/2025 is dismissed.

¶227

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶228

HC-KAR

¶229

If the petitioner makes any representation, the respondent - Board is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶230

WP No.18506/2025:

¶231

In WP No.18506/2025, the petitioner called in question, the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 vide Annexure-D, in so far as the petitioner and the third respondent are concerned.

¶232

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

¶233

(i) Firstly, the third respondent has been transferred from different places every two to three months, without any reason. Again, she has been transferred to the petitioner’s place and the transfer order is issued with a malafide intention.

¶234

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶235

HC-KAR

¶236

(ii) Secondly, even the Board has passed the cancellation order dated 25.06.2025, to see that the petitioner has to be retained in the same place on the ground that the petitioner’s service is required in that place. Since the transfer of the third respondent to the petitioner’s place is not in the public interest, the impugned order requires to be quashed.

¶237

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has contended that, as per the transfer guidelines, the tenure is for two years, the petitioner has completed two years tenure. Therefore, the Board has passed the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 vide Annexure-D.

¶238

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

¶239

The petitioner was transferred to AEE, West 22, Nagarabhavi on 20.08.2022. The impugned transfer order has been passed on 21.06.2025. By that time, the

¶240

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶241

HC-KAR

¶242

petitioner has completed his tenure of two years. This Court has already held that the cancellation order dated 25.06.2025 is passed without giving any reason. Neither the order nor the file discloses any reason. Since the transfer of the petitioner is not premature or not contrary to the transfer guidelines, there is no illegality or error in the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 in respect of the petitioner and the third respondent are concerned.

¶243

Hence, W.P.No.18506/2025 is dismissed.

¶244

If the petitioner submits any representation, the respondent shall consider the same, without being influenced by this order.

¶245

WP No.20693/2025:

¶246

In W.P.No.20693/2025, the petitioner called in

¶247

question the transfer order dated 21.06.2025 vide

¶248

Annexure-B.

¶249

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶250

HC-KAR

¶251

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶252

raised the following contentions:

¶253

(i) Firstly, the third respondent has taken charge in K&T Valley on 09.09.2024. Before completion of two years, by the impugned order vide Annexure-B, the third respondent has been transferred to the petitioner’s place. Therefore, the transfer order, which is passed, is premature.

¶254

(ii) Secondly, the petitioner’s daughter is aged about one year and she is suffering from serious illness. To that effect, she has submitted a representation enclosing all the medical documents. Therefore, considering the transfer guidelines, by cancellation order dated 25.06.2025, the petitioner has been retained in AEE, South West 4. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶255

Sri Satish, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has contended that the petitioner has

¶256

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶257

HC-KAR

¶258

completed two years in AEE, South West 4. Therefore, she has no locus to challenge the transfer order of the third respondent. As per the transfer guidelines, the petitioner has been transferred. Hence, sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶259

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition papers.

¶260

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has taken charge in AEE South East 4 on 01.08.2022. On 21.06.2025, she has completed her tenure of two years. Therefore, transferring the petitioner to K&T Valley is not premature.

¶261

The only grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure G dated 03.07.2025, on the ground that, her daughter is suffering from serious illness. But, in the cancellation order dated 25.06.2025 or in the file, there is no reason forthcoming as to why the transfer order dated

¶262

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶263

HC-KAR

¶264

21.06.2025 has been cancelled. Therefore, since the petitioner has completed a tenure of two years, there are no illegalities in the transfer order dated 21.06.2025.

¶265

The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.No.20693/2025 is dismissed.

¶266

However, it is made clear that, since the petitioner has submitted a representation vide Annexure-G on the ground that her daughter is suffering from serious illness, the respondent - Board is directed to consider the same and take a decision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from today.

¶267

It is also made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondent – Board to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶268

34 - NC: 2025:KHC:36642 WP No. 18588 of 2025 AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS

¶269

HC-KAR

¶270

In view of transfer and cancellation order and the petitioner submitting a representation for cancellation of the impugned transfer order dated 21.06.2025 and in view of pendency of this case, she could not take charge in K&T Valley, the respondent – Board is directed to grant all service benefits to the petitioner during this period.

¶271

In view of disposal of the petitions, all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶272

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶273

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Sri. Gous Inamdar, v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gous Inamdar, v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Damayanthi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Anusuyamma Vs Smt Parvathamma

Dr. B M Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadevu Vs Mysore City Corporation

Sri H Vasu Shetty Vs M/S Union Bank of India