Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer was premature, and whether the posting of respondent No.3 in his place was bad for failure to provide any posting to the petitioner (a contention the Court stated was to be examined by the Tribunal). +2 more

Court's answer

Whether the petitioner's transfer was premature and whether the posting of respondent No.3 without providing any posting to the petitioner was bad was a contention to be examined by the Tribunal - the point was expressly left open by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

Having voluntarily handed over charge by signing the CTC in pursuance of the transfer order, the petitioner could not have sought the interim prayer, and upon the Tribunal's rejection of that prayer he could not have approached this Court.

Key takeaways

Handing over charge by signing the CTC would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the impugned order of transfer on any ground.ratio¶¶48
It would be unreasonable and unfair on the part of the petitioner to seek stay of the order of transfer when he himself had voluntarily handed over charge by signing the CTC, that too being a Group-A officer.ratio¶¶51
This Court was not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's interim order dated 30.07.2025 in Application No.3475/2025; there being no justification to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S-KSAT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a Tahsildar Grade-I (Group-A) questioning, in writ jurisdiction, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 30.07.2025 in Application No.3475/2025 rejecting his interim prayer for stay of transfer Notification dated 16.07.2025, whereby respondent No.3 was posted in his place at Chikkaballapura without any posting to him, though he had been posted there by Notification dated 28.02.2024 and claimed an incomplete two-year minimum tenure. Division Bench (per S.G. Pandit J., with K.V. Aravind J.) observed that, having voluntarily handed over charge to respondent No.3 by signing the CTC on 17.07.2025 in pursuance of the transfer order, the petitioner could not seek stay of the transfer nor assail the Tribunal's rejection of the interim prayer; yet handing over charge would not preclude challenging the transfer on any ground; whether the transfer was premature and the posting of respondent No.3 bad for non-provision of posting was left to the Tribunal. On counsel's request the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn (07.08.2025); no monetary amount involved and no precedent cited.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

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

WRIT PETITION No. 23937 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI A. V. SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, TAHSILDAR GRADE-1, (WAITING FOR POSTING), R/AT AMMAGARIPET, JINKALAVARIPALLI, KOLAR, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN-563134.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI SUBRAMANI M.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, PIN-562101.

KUM. SHWETHA B.K., FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR GRADE-1, CHELURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PIN 56312.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 30.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.3475/2025 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner, Tahsildar, Grade-I, a Group-A Officer is before this Court questioning the rejection of his interim prayer by order dated 30.07.2025 in Application No.3475/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal').

Heard Sri. M. A. Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

Sri. M. A. Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Tahsildar, Grade-I holder of Group-A post was posted as Tahsildar, Grade-I to Chikkaballapura District by Notification dated 28.02.2024 and in pursuant to the said Notification, he took charge of the said post on 01.03.2024. It is the grievance of the petitioner that under Notification dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-A5), respondent No.3 is posted in his place without providing any posting to the petitioner with a direction to report to the revenue department seeking further posting. It is submitted that the petitioner questioned the said order of posting respondent No.3 in his place without providing him any posting in Application No.3475/2025 before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of the said order of transfer, handed over charge to respondent No.3 on 17.07.2025 by signing the CTC [Annexure-R2(1)]. After handing over the charge, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the above stated application.

The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the

interim prayer of the petitioner observing that when the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

impugned order has been implemented, the question of staying the impugned order does not arise. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

Sri. M. A. Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the transfer of the petitioner is premature and that too without providing any posting. He submits that the petitioner is a Group-A officer, is provided with minimum tenure of two years and the petitioner has not completed the said two years tenure at the place of posting i.e., Chikkaballapura.

Learned counsel would also submit that as held by this Court, respondent No.1 while posting respondent No.3 in his place, did not provide any posting to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that when the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, the Tribunal ought to have granted interim prayer.

On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that when the petitioner himself has handed over charge by signing CTC, he would not be entitled for any interim order. Thus, he prays for rejecting the writ petition.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order dated 30.07.2025 in Application No.3475/2025 passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The petitioner contends that his transfer is premature and that too, without providing any posting. It is an admitted fact that in pursuance of the impugned Notification of transfer dated 16.07.2025, the petitioner handed over charge to the respondent No.3 by signing CTC on 17.07.2025 [Annexure-R2(1)]. The contention as to whether the petitioner's transfer is premature and posting of respondent No.3 in his place is bad for non-providing posting to the petitioner is to be examined by the Tribunal. However, the petitioner having voluntarily handed over charge by signing CTC could not have sought interim prayer and on rejection of the interim prayer by the Tribunal, he could not have approached this Court.

We would make it clear that handing over charge by signing CTC would not preclude the petitioner from challenging

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30711-DB WP No. 23937 of 2025

HC-KAR

the impugned order of transfer on any ground. But it would be unreasonable and unfair on the part of the petitioner to seek stay of the order of transfer when he himself voluntarily handed

over charge by signing CTC that too, being a Group-A officer.

In the above circumstances, there is no justification

to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal.

At this stage, Mr. M. A. Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition itself.

His submission is placed on record.

Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

VBS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11