Sri Narasimhamurthy C Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY C., S/O. CHANNANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ACCOUNTS OFFICER (AUDIT), O/O DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. R/AT No. M.F. 49/7, 1^ST FLOOR, PANCHADEEPA COLONY, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI T. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G. K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (ADMINISTRATIVE AND ADVANCES), VIDANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, TTMC BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶22

SRI. VENKATESH.K S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ACCOUNTS OFFICER, O/O THE COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 MADE IN APPLICATION No.2810/2025 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.2810/2025 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2025, whereby the application has been dismissed.

¶34

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a physically challenged Group-‘A’ employee working as Accounts Officer (Audit) in the Office of the Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, was transferred by order dated 20.06.2025 to the post of Accounts Officer in the Backward and Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru.

¶35

The challenge to the transfer is on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to a minimum tenure of two years at the place of posting in terms of the Transfer

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Guidelines, 2025. It is further contended that, being a physically challenged employee and due for retirement in one year and three months, the petitioner is exempt from the application of the said Guidelines. The Tribunal, upon considering the contentions urged, dismissed the application, holding that a transfer from one office to another within the same headquarters does not violate the Transfer Guidelines, 2025, and that there is no prohibition against the transfer of a physically challenged employee.

¶39

Sri T. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel

¶40

appearing for Sri Basavaraja Patel G.K., learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in view of the Transfer Guidelines, 2025, the petitioner is exempt from transfer after completion of the minimum tenure. Hence, it is contended that merely because the petitioner has completed the minimum tenure, he cannot be transferred under the said Guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that, in the present transferred post, the petitioner is required to visit multiple offices of the Department across

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the State, and due to his physical disability, he is not in a position to perform such duties without considerable inconvenience.

¶44

4.1 It is further submitted that the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, upon considering the petitioner’s case, has also recommended that he be granted exemption from the application of the transfer policy. It is contended that the Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid aspects, proceeded to reject the application solely on the ground that the petitioner had been relieved and respondent No.4 had reported to duty. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

¶45

a. (2011) 12 SCC 499 - Paras - 32 & 33 in the case of Gammon India Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai .

¶46

b. (2022) 15 SCC 81 - Paras - 24 to 29 in the case of Net Ram Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan and Others .

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

c. 2024 NCKHC-D 1985 - W.P.107944/2023(SKAT)DD:29.1.2024 Sri. Ramesh Gurappa Bandi vs. The State of Karnataka .

¶50

d. 2024 ILR Karnataka 5329 Sri. K.S. Sudhakara vs. The State of Karnataka and others .

¶51

e. 2024 SCC Online Del 4952 - IRCON International Ltd., vs. Bhavneet Singh .

¶52

f. W.P.24337/2024(S-KAT)DD:11.09.2024 Sri.V.Shivakumar vs. The State of Karnataka and another .

¶53

On the other hand, Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the petitioner has been transferred from the Department of Collegiate Education to the Social Welfare Department within the same city, and that the functions to be performed in the transferred post are identical. It is further submitted that, in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines for the year 2025-26, the petitioner has been accommodated at the nearest possible place.

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Sri Satish K., learned counsel appearing for

¶57

respondent No.4, submits that the transfer of the petitioner is not in violation of the Transfer Guidelines for the year 2025-26 and is in accordance with law.

¶58

On a careful perusal of the grounds urged and

¶59

the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is evident that the petitioner has completed the minimum tenure of posting in the Department of Collegiate Education. The challenge to the transfer is twofold: firstly, that the petitioner, being a person with disability, is exempt from the application of the transfer policy; and secondly, that the nature of work in the transferred post requires travel and visits to multiple offices of the Department across the State, which, in view of his disability, would cause serious hardship. Both contentions are untenable. The Transfer Guidelines for the year 2025-26 does not impose a complete bar on the transfer of employees with physical disabilities; rather, it provides that such employees be accommodated at the

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

nearest place. Under the impugned transfer, the petitioner has been shifted from one office to another within the city of Bengaluru. Though it is contended that such transfer would cause inconvenience, the nature and extent of such inconvenience has not been substantiated.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure-A18, submits that the Accounts Officer in the Backward and Social Welfare Department is required to perform multiple functions, including visiting the offices of the Department across the State. This submission is unfounded. None of the functions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicate any mandatory requirement for him to travel to different places. Merely because the petitioner is required to verify the accounts of various offices of the Department, it cannot be inferred that he must personally visit all such offices.

¶64

The petitioner has not produced any material to

¶65

showcase the scope of work in the Department of

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Collegiate Education so as to compare it with the scope of work in the transferred post. The contention that, while serving in the Department of Collegiate Education, there was no necessity to travel to different places, whereas in the present posting he is required to travel, is noted only to be rejected as being without any basis.

¶69

Another contention raised, that the

¶70

representation seeking continuation in the Department of Collegiate Education has not been considered by the competent authority, is unfounded. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate produced the relevant records, which we have duly perused. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been duly considered.

¶71

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:31173-DB WP No. 23879 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the present case and, accordingly, are of no assistance to the petitioner.

¶75

The Tribunal, upon considering the case of the petitioner, has rightly dismissed the application. The order of the Tribunal is well-reasoned, and we find the same to be justifiable. The petitioner has not made out any exceptional ground warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶76

In view of the dismissal of the petition, the interlocutory application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶77

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶78

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶79

DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Narasimhamurthy C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narasimhamurthy C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Suma Vs Deputy Director

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakeel Ahmed. C. W. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Y Veera Pratap Vs Union of India

Smt Sukanya Vs State of Karnataka