Sri Srinivasa N Vs the State of Karnataka

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RANGE 06, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 022. RESIDING AT P. D KOTE, DHARMAPURA HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577/596.

¶11

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. THEJESH M., S/O. LATE MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCIS, RANGE 01, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560 064. RESIDING AT NO. 22, HANUMAPPA LAYOUT, HALASANDRA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560 064.

¶13

SRI. MADHUKANTHA B.,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

S/O. BHOJAPPA.M.K

¶17

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RANGE-13, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 051. RESIDING AT NO.50, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027.

¶23

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.RUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU IN A.No-34323441/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HERE IN ARE CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No3432-3441/2025 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B).

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶33

The petitioners have been appointed as SubInspectors with the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka in the month of March 2022 and they have filed their applications in Nos.3432-3441/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ] calling in question the Final Eligibility List dated 23.07.2025 issued by the second respondent

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

for participation in counselling for transfer. The Tribunal has rejected this application by its order dated 26.09.2025 [ Annexure-A ], and hence, the petitioners have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Sri Prithveesh M.K., the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners, as of March 2025, had completed the " minimum tenure " of three years prescribed for the cadre and as such they were entitled for participation in counseling for transfer according to the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 [for short, 'the Rules, 2025' ], but the Tribunal has refused to intercede on behalf of the petitioners because of its opinion [i] that they had to undergo training and the time spent in training cannot be treated as duty in the post and [ii] that the petitioners, because they were on probation will not be substantive appointees until completion of the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

probation, and therefore, the period on probation

¶42

cannot be counted as actual duty for transfer.

¶43

Sri Prithveesh M.K canvasses that the

¶44

Rules, 2025 do not admit of any interpretation that would exclude the period of training, and the learned counsel seeks to elaborate stating, amongst others, that if exclusion of the period under training could be justified so would be the exclusion of the time during which a concerned official could be on different leaves such as maternity leave. On the ground of the exclusion of the period on probation, the learned counsel submits that this distinction would be extraneous for transfer and could have a cascading effect for the petitioners throughout their careers.

¶45

Sri. Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional Advocate General who argues on behalf of the respondents and is supported by Sri. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that his instructions are that the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

respondents did not canvass that the time on probation must be excluded for computing " minimum period" for transfer and that the respondents' specific case is that the petitioners on training would not be on deployment to posts as contemplated under Rule 2(1)(e) of the Rules, 2025 and therefore cannot insist that the training period must be considered for computing the " minimum period " for transfer.

¶49

The question whether the Court must intervene in the light of the rival submissions is considered in the context of the Tribunal's reasoning. The Tribunal has indeed opined that the period of service until the successful completion of the probation cannot be considered as a regular posting and therefore must be excluded from computation of the " minimum period " for transfer. This finding is extraneous to the case even according to the respondents, and therefore there is a justification for this Court's interference.

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The Tribunal, on the question of exclusion

¶54

of the training period, has observed thus referring to the respondents' order dated 10.02.2023 prescribing different compulsory training for Sub-Inspectors with the Department of Excise along with duration.

¶55

"7. Further the applicants have admitted in the applications they have been sent on training. The question for our consideration is whether time spent on training will be treated as "duty in that post" as applicants have not functioned "substantially" as Sub-Inspectors of Excise being probationer and deputed for training for almost a year?".

¶56

However, the Tribunal has rendered no opinion on the exclusion of the training period for computing the " minimum period " for transfer.

¶57

This Court is of the view that any

¶58

conclusion on this ground must be in the light of the Rules, 2025 and the import thereof as canvassed by both the petitioners and the respondents and that

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

until there is such consideration there will not be complete adjudication, a touchstone for any decision either by a Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, there is cause for interference, restoring the application for reconsideration.

¶62

At this stage, Sri M.K. Prithveesh submits that this Court must ensure that the notification issued by the respondents giving effect to the counselling must be stayed because [i] the petitioners have had the advantage of an interim order against the notification of the counselling results; [ii] the similar applications are pending with the Tribunal at its Belgaum Bench and there is an interim order protecting the interest of those applicants; [iii] the notification of the counselling result is after the impugned order dated 26.09.2025; [iv] the petitioners have immediately approached this Court with the present petition and [v] if the petitioners are not extended the benefit of some protection when the

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Tribunal is reconsidering the primary question whether the training period must be excluded for computation of the " minimum period ", they will be prosecuting the applications for no advantage.

¶66

In response, Mr. Reuben Jacob submits that with the counselling results being notified, about 112 officers in the rank of Sub-Inspectors with the Department of Excise have reported to duty and any interim order at this stage which has the effect of disturbing the posting of these officers would be without due opportunity to them. When queried, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that this Court may consider observing that in the event the petitioners succeed in their applications with the Tribunal there could be an order for re-no tification for counselling and consequential orders of all the concerned.

¶67

Mr. Reuben Jacob further points out that not all the applicants before the Tribunal are before

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

this Court and it is only three applicants whose applications are in Nos. 3438, 3440 and 3441 of 2025 and that any interference by this Court cannot inure to the advantage of those who have not called in question the Tribunal's order and Mr. Reuben Jacob also underscores that the other seven applicants with the Tribunal are not even arrayed as respondents.

¶71

This Court is interfering with the Tribunal's order because no opinion is rendered on the question of law. If only the petitioners prosecute the application and not the other applicants, it should be open to the Tribunal to dismiss the applications by the others or decide the question of law on merits subject to orders on the relief that could be granted to those who do not prosecute the applications after this restoration. Further, this Court must observe that it should be trite that when an application or a petition is restored for reconsideration, the Courts

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

must provide for an effective interim arrangement. This Court finds the reasons offered on behalf of the respondents are overwhelming and the interim arrangement must be as canvassed on their behalf. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

[a] The petition is allowed-in-part and the Tribunal's impugned order dated 26.09.2025 in Application Nos.34323441/2025 are set-aside restoring the applications for reconsideration.

¶78

[b] The petitioners and those applicants, who could stand to the benefit of being heard once again but are not parties to the present petition, shall appear before the Tribunal without further notice on 03.11.2025 with the onus being on the petitioners to inform the co-applicants who have not joined them in the present proceedings.

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:41953-DB WP No. 31848 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

[c] The respondents shall also, without further notice, appear before the Tribunal on 03.11.2025.

¶83

[d] The Tribunal shall consider the relief that the petitioners/applicants would be entitled to if they succeed on the question of law as part of its final decision and the Tribunal shall endeavor to dispose of these applications expeditiously and in any event before 20.12.2025.

¶84

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶85

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶86

SA ct:sr

Sri Srinivasa N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekharappa v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivanand Marakeri Vs the Commissioner

Sri S Nagabhushana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Siddamma Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri. R Jagannatha