Sri Vijaya Muni B Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Vijaya Muni B Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court must intervene with the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.3248/2025 (setting aside the Notification dated 07.07.2025 concerning the petitioner and the third respondent). +1 more

Court's answer

The question framed — whether this Court must intervene with the Tribunal's order dated 23.09.2025 in Application No.3248/2025 — is answered against the petitioner, and the writ petition stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no reason to take exception to the Tribunal's conclusion; the petitioner's failure to report to duty at the place of transfer and his pursuit of grievance through the Hon'ble Minister's Recommendation dated 10.06.2025 after withdrawing his pending application cannot augur well for the discipline expected in Government Service.

Key takeaways

No separate order was required to be issued to the petitioner to report to duty, because the Notification dated 02.06.2025 itself is categorical that the officers must report to duty at the place of posting and ensure that the communication about assuming charge is sent to the concerned Section.ratio¶¶73
The petitioner, with the implemented transfer order in place, should have reported to duty at the place of posting and continued prosecuting his remedy, rather than withdrawing his application in anticipation of a favourable turn following the Hon'ble Minister's recommendation.ratio¶¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Oral Order dated 17.11.2025, W.P. No. 30116/2025 (S-KSAT) (per B M Shyam Prasad J., bench incl. T.M. Nadaf J.): Certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 sought to quash the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 23.09.2025 in A.No.3248/2025. Background: Notification dated 02.06.2025 interchanged petitioner (Section Officer, UDD MA-1) and respondent 3; both first challenged it before KSAT (A.Nos. 2466/2025 and 2836/2025) but withdrew; after a Ministerial note dated 10.06.2025 favouring the petitioner, the Notification dated 07.07.2025 retained the petitioner at UDD MA-1 and moved respondent 3 to Forest, Ecology and Environment Department [Forest - A]. KSAT set aside the Notification dated 07.07.2025, restoring respondent 3 to UDD MA-1 per the Notification dated 02.06.2025. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion: the Notification dated 02.06.2025 itself required officers to report at the place of posting, so no separate relieving memorandum was needed; the petitioner's non-reporting and recourse to ministerial patronage after withdrawing his application offended service discipline. Question answered against petitioner; petition disposed of without granting relief.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.09.2025 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.3248/2025, by which the Tribunal set aside the Notification dated 07.07.2025 as regards the petitioner and the third respondent, held that the third respondent is entitled to continue as Section Officer, UDD MA-1 as per the Notification dated 02.06.2025, and directed the authorities to provide suitable posting to the petitioner.¶¶32
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore · 2025-09-23
Prior proceeding
Notification dated 02.06.2025 posted the third respondent (then with School Education and Saksharatha Department) in place of the petitioner with the Urban Development Department, Municipal Administration-1 [UDD MA1], with the petitioner being posted to the third respondent's place.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
The petitioner and the third respondent separately challenged the Notification dated 02.06.2025 with the Tribunal in Application Nos. 2466/2025 and 2836/2025; the third respondent withdrew his application (order dated 16.07.2025) and the petitioner withdrew his (order dated 17.06.2025).¶¶36
Prior proceeding
The Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department wrote a Note dated 10.06.2025 recording excellent service by the petitioner and recommending withdrawal of the Notification dated 02.06.2025 and his continuance with UDD MA-1.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Clarification sought on 25.06.2025 from the Secretary to Government, DPAR on who should be retained, noting both occupied the same post; the response dated 03.07.2025 stated that the petitioner and the third respondent must be continued in the posts they held prior to 02.06.2025.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Thereafter the Notification dated 07.07.2025 was issued, modifying the Notification dated 02.06.2025: the petitioner was continued with UDD MA-1 and the third respondent was posted to the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department [Forest - A].¶¶42
Prior proceeding
The third respondent challenged the Notification dated 07.07.2025 before the Tribunal in Application No.3248/2025, which resulted in the impugned order dated 23.09.2025.¶¶47