Sri Anand Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. ANAND S/O CHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KRRDA) CENTRAL OFFICE BANGALORE, MULTI-STORED BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 R/AT C/O NO.1 & 2 DWARAKANAGARA, 7^TH CROSS, CHANNASANDRA, R.R. NAGARA,

¶11

BENGALURU SOUTH-560 061.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. T. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MR. K.P. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O. LATE C. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION (RDPR), KOLAR-563 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2026 PASSED IN A. No.15/2026 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE-A AND CONTINUE THE PETITIONER IN THE PRESENT PLACE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶24

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

The respondent in Application No.15/2026 is before this Court, impugning the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶32

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency, Bengaluru, in place of respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No.2 had been posted to the said position by Notification dated 07.03.2023. Subsequently, respondent No.2 was transferred as Executive Engineer, Planning Division, Kolar, to a vacant post.

¶33

2.1 Aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 30.12.2025, respondent No.2 challenged the same before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that he was due to retire on 30.05.2027 and, having less than two years of service remaining, was not liable to be transferred. It was further contended that respondent No.2 had been posted to the earlier position by Notification dated 07.03.2023 upon promotion.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

2.2 The Tribunal, by the impugned order, proceeded on the basis that the respondent therein (the petitioner herein) had not contested the application by filing a reply statement and, by drawing an inference that the petition had not been opposed, set aside the order of transfer dated 30.12.2025. The Tribunal further directed that respondent No.2 be continued in the said post till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or until his transfer is necessitated in accordance with law.

¶38

Sri T. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was earlier posted to Yadgir and reported for duty on 13.12.2023. It is submitted that, upon completion of his tenure, he was transferred to the Head Office and kept awaiting posting. It is further submitted that, while the petitioner was awaiting posting, he was transferred to the place of respondent No. 2, and respondent No. 2 was, in turn, transferred to Kolar as Executive Engineer by Notification dated 30.12.2025. It is contended that the transfer of the petitioner from Yadgir to Bengaluru was upon completion of the minimum tenure. It is also submitted that

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondent No. 2 had likewise completed the minimum tenure in Bengaluru. Further, it is submitted that respondent No. 2 has remained in Bengaluru for more than 20 years.

¶43

Per contra , Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, supports the order of transfer dated 30.12.2025.

¶44

Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶45

No. 2, submits that respondent No. 2 was posted to the Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency, Bengaluru, on promotion by Notification dated 07.03.2023. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is due to retire on 30.05.2027 and, as his remaining service is less than two years, he is entitled to continue at the same place. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is facing an enquiry and an FIR has been registered against him, and, in view of the transfer guidelines, the petitioner is not entitled to be posted to the place specified in the Notification dated 30.12.2025.

¶46

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

¶47

writ papers.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Respondent No. 2 was posted as Executive Engineer, Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency, Bengaluru, by Notification dated 07.03.2023, upon promotion. Prior thereto, respondent No. 2 had been serving in the same institution as a Technical Assistant. The petitioner, on the other hand, was posted to Yadgir Division and assumed charge on 13.12.2023. The petitioner was thereafter relieved from Yadgir and directed to report to the Head Office for posting. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to the post held by respondent No. 2, and respondent No. 2 was posted as Executive Engineer, Kolar.

¶51

7.1 Both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have completed the minimum tenure of two years, and their transfers cannot be termed premature. The order of transfer is, however, challenged on the ground that respondent No. 2 is due to retire on 30.05.2027 and is therefore entitled to continue in Bengaluru. As on the date of transfer, respondent No. 2 had approximately 17 months of service remaining until retirement. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No. 2 has served in Bengaluru for more than 20 years. In contrast, the petitioner has served in Yadgir Division and has been posted to Bengaluru

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

in place of respondent No. 2 only upon completion of the minimum tenure in Yadgir Division.

¶56

7.2 Considering the length of service of respondent No. 2, namely more than 20 years in Bengaluru, and the fact that only about 17 months of service remain, it is not open to respondent No. 2 to contend that he is entitled to exemption from transfer on the ground of impending retirement.

¶57

7.3 Another contention urged by respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner is not eligible to be posted as Executive Engineer in his place at Bengaluru, on the ground that the petitioner is facing an enquiry and that an FIR has been registered against him. Such a contention is not available to respondent No. 2. Any alleged disqualification of the petitioner to hold the post would not entitle respondent No. 2 to continue in the same place, in the same city, particularly after having served there for more than 20 years.

¶58

7.4 Once respondent No. 2 has completed his tenure, he cannot have any legitimate grievance. Transfer is an incident of service, and no Government servant has a vested right to

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

continue in the same place or to seek posting at a particular station.

¶62

7.5 In the order of transfer, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, has mechanically proceeded to set aside the order of transfer.

¶63

7.6 The Tribunal has further proceeded on the premise that the respondent therein, namely the petitioner herein, had not filed a reply statement to contest the application and, on that basis, presumed that he had no objection to the grant of relief. Solely on the said ground, the Tribunal has set aside the order of transfer. We find it difficult to concur with the said finding recorded by the Tribunal.

¶64

7.7 Merely because the application is not opposed, the relief sought therein cannot be granted without adjudication on merits. There is no presumption in law that an unopposed application deems the application to be allowed.

¶65

In light of the above, we are inclined to entertain this writ petition and issue the following directions:

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:20509-DB WP No. 10984 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶71

(ii) Impugned order in Application No.15/2026 dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside .

¶72

(iii) Application No.15/2026 is dismissed.

¶73

(iv) The respondent No.2 shall report to transferred place forthwith if not reported already. However considering that as on date the respondent No.2 is having a little over 12 months of service, the respondent No.2 is granted liberty to file representation before the appropriate Authority seeking alternative posting.

¶74

(v) The respondent-Authority is at liberty to consider such representation if made in accordance with law.

¶75

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶76

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶77

SMJ; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Sri Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anand 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

Smt. Bhavya B.S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs Sri. Ankit Bansal

Lufthansa Technik Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sri Shivaraj, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tejaswi C Vs the Principal Secretary and Appellate Authority

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Parvathi. J