Sri H E Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. H.E. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. LATE. H.K. ERAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 10^TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 AND RESIDING AT NO.463, 11TH 'B' MAIN, 17TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 10^TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR V.K., MAJOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK (KASCARD) NO.1811, NEAR EYE HOSPITAL, TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/11/2025 IN A.NO.4581/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CAT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶32

The applicant in Application No.4581/2025 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, ('Tribunal' for short) is before us in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the impugned interim order dated 06.11.2025. The Tribunal by impugned order observed that the reporting of the fourth respondent in the place of applicant and transfer of the applicant is subject to the result of the application and proceeded to issue notice for the official respondents and directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to take necessary instructions as to whether the fourth respondent is competent to hold the post shown in the impugned order and submit his say on the next date of hearing.

¶33

The parties are referred to as per the rankings before the Tribunal.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Brief outline of facts leading to filing of the

¶37

present petition are as under:

¶38

The applicant was working as Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. The first respondent by order dated 08.12.2023 transferred the applicant to the post of Joint Director (Development), Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. The applicant reported to the office of the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru on 06.03.2024 in the place of one Sri.B.K.Rudramuni.

¶39

The said B.K.Rudramuni called in question the order of transfer dated 08.12.2023 in Application No.5188/2023, on the ground that his transfer is premature. At the first instance, the Tribunal passed an interim order staying the operation and execution of the order dated 08.12.2023. During the pendency of the application, Sri.B.K.Rudramuni, the applicant completed his prescribed tenure stated in the order of transfer. However, considering the fact that the said

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Rudramuni was not shown any posting in the transfer order dated 08.12.2023, a direction was issued by the Tribunal to the Government to take a fresh decision in the matter of posting of said B.K.Rudramuni, to the post of Joint Director (Development) as per the Recruitment Rules by order dated 26.02.2024.

¶43

In compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.5188/2023, the first respondent by Notification dated 06.03.2024 posted Sri.B.K.Rudramuni as Municipal Commissioner, Gadag-Betageri, Grade-I, City Municipal Council.

¶44

Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the applicant reported to the duty as Joint Director Development in the office of the Director of Municipal Administration on 07.03.2024 and discharging his duties in the office of Director of Municipal Administration.

¶45

To his dismay, the second respondent transferred the fourth respondent in the place of applicant by Notification dated 31.10.2025. The second respondent while transferring

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the fourth respondent in the place of the applicant, has not shown any posting to the applicant which is in violation of the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SEEMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2017 (2) KAR 59 and KANTEPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2020(4) KLJ 205. This apart, it is submitted that the fourth respondent is not competent to hold the post.

¶49

The Tribunal upon hearing the applicant, passed the interim order (impugned herein). The Tribunal considering the fact that the fourth respondent has already reported to the duty by virtue of the impugned order, passed an order stating that reporting of the fourth respondent to duty in the place of the applicant and transfer of the applicant is subject to the result of application, and directed the Additional Government Advocate to seek instructions regarding competency of the fourth respondent to continue in the posting. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by the applicant in this writ petition.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Heard Sri.M.Nagarajan, learned counsel

¶53

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶54

Sri.M.Nagarajan, with all vehemence submits that though the Tribunal has observed that the applicant was not provided any suitable posting under the impugned order appears to be contrary to the transfer guidelines, however, considering the fact that the fourth respondent reported to the duty, has not granted interim order as prayed for, but ordered that the reporting of the fourth respondent in the place of the applicant and transfer of the applicant subject to the result of the application. He further submits that, reporting to the duty by the fourth respondent will not be a hurdle in passing the interim order. He states that the prima facie case has been made out that, the order passed is in utter disregard to the guidelines. With this, he sought to allow the writ petition and modify the impugned order and issue interim order of stay as sought in the application.

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

6. In contrast, Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Addl.

¶58

Government Advocate submits that the interest of the applicant has been protected by ordering that the reporting of fourth respondent to duty and transfer of applicant is subject to the result of the petition. The Tribunal has directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to seek instructions regarding the competence of the fourth respondent to hold the post. The matter is yet to be decided before the Tribunal on merits and if any order is passed in this petition nothing remains before the Tribunal to decide. As the matter is still pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner will be relegated before the Tribunal to submit his arguments on merits and sought to dismiss the application.

¶59

We find force in the argument addressed by

¶60

Sri.Vikas Rojipura. Whether the transfer is premature or whether the fourth respondent is not competent to hold the post or whether the reporting of duty in terms of the order are all required to be considered by the Tribunal in the pending application. The interest of the applicant is protected by means of passing of the order that the reporting

¶61

9 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:46583-DB WP No. 33797 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

of the fourth respondent in the place of the applicant and transfer of the applicant is subject to result of the application.

¶65

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that, if the applicant is relegated to the Tribunal to make his submissions on the merits of the case with a request to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter at the earliest, considering the fact that the issue involved is transfer, could meet ends of justice.

¶66

In view of the same, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and dispose of the matter with a direction to the petitioner-applicant to approach the Tribunal and make submissions on merits and request the Tribunal to dispose of the petition as early as possible within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶67