Dismissed¶47

Sri B N Nataraja, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/16506/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 dismissed; challenge to KSAT order dated 02.06.2026 (Application No. 2705/2026) refusing stay of transfer O.M. dated 27.05.2026; Second Division Assistant moved within Bangalore (Sub-Registrar Hesaraghatta to District Registrar Jayanagar); posting within Headquarters is a transfer per Transfer Guidelines but no enforceable right absent demonstrated grievance or effect on service conditions; no hardship in intra-Bangalore posting; precedents of interim orders in identical cases not applicable - interim prayer depends on facts of each case; petitioner may seek early disposal of Tribunal application.

What did the court decide?

None - the writ petition was rejected for want of merit; the Court observed it is open to the petitioner to seek early disposal of his pending application before the Tribunal.

Sri B N Nataraja, Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the writ petition was rejected for want of merit; the Court observed it is open to the petitioner to seek early disposal of his pending application before the Tribunal.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Tribunal's order dated 02.06.2026 (in Application No. 2705/2026) refusing interim stay of the petitioner's transfer ordered by O.M. dated 27.05.2026, which counsel argued was premature as effected before completion of the petitioner's tenure (till December 2026). +2 more

¶39

Court's answer

Having heard the parties and perused the writ petition papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Tribunal order dated 02.06.2026 refusing to stay the petitioner's transfer.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands rejected.

¶47

Key takeaways

Posting within the Head Quarters from one office to another office is a transfer as per the Transfer Guidelines.ratio¶45
That a posting within Headquarters is a transfer does not by itself give the petitioner an enforceable right; he must demonstrate how he is aggrieved or how it affects his service conditions.ratio¶45
Where the petitioner is posted from one office to another office within Bangalore, no hardship would be caused to him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (S.G. Pandit J., per order; K. Manmadha Rao J.) dismissed W.P. No. 16506 of 2026 (S-KSAT), in which a Second Division Assistant at the Sub-Registrar Office, Hesaraghatta challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 02.06.2026 in Application No. 2705/2026 refusing to stay his transfer by O.M. dated 27.05.2026 to the District Registrar Office, Jayanagar, Bangalore. The Court held that although posting within the Head Quarters from one office to another is a transfer under the Transfer Guidelines, this by itself confers no enforceable right unless the employee demonstrates how he is aggrieved or how the posting affects his service conditions; a posting from one office to another within Bangalore causes no hardship. Interim orders earlier granted by the Tribunal in identical fact situations were rejected as precedent, interim prayers depending on the facts of each case. The petitioner was left free to seek early disposal of his Tribunal application, which the Tribunal was expected to take up expeditiously.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 16506 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI B N NATARAJA, S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, HESARAGHATTA, H C PUTTASWAMY LAYOUT, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, OPPOSITE TO KEB OFFICE, HESARAGHATTA, BANGALORE -560 088.

¶12

R/AT NO.347/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, JAGAJYOTHI LAYOUT, MARIYAPPANA PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING,

¶20

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.06.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 2705/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner, a Second Division Assistant working at Sub-Registrar Office, Hesaraghatta, Bangalore is before this Court, questioning the order dated 02.06.2026 passed in Application No.2705/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s prayer for stay of transfer O.M. dated 27.05.2026, transferring him to District Registrar Office at Jayanagar, Bangalore.

¶33

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner and Sri.K.R.Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶35

the petitioner was posted to the present post on 02.12.2022. Under impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the petitioner is transferred from Hesaraghatta to District Registrar Office at Jayanagar even before he completes his

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

tenure of 4 years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed 3 years 5 months and has a tenure till December 2026. As such, he submits that the transfer of the petitioner is premature. Further, learned counsel would submit that in terms of Transfer Guidelines, transfer within the Head Quarters would also amount to a transfer and in identical fact situations, the Tribunal had granted interim prayer. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal refused to stay the order of transfer. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition and to grant interim prayer as prayed for before the Tribunal. Further learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the time the Tribunal considers the petitioner’s application and passes orders, the petitioner would complete his tenure, as such, the application before the Tribunal would become unnecessary.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶41

on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the Tribunal refusing to stay the transfer of the petitioner.

¶45

No doubt, posting within the Head Quarters from one office to another office is a transfer as per the Transfer Guidelines. But, that itself would not give right to the petitioner to enforce his right unless he demonstrates as to how he is aggrieved or how it affects his service conditions. When the petitioner is posted from one office to another office within Bangalore, no hardship would be caused to the petitioner.

¶46

The contention that in identical fact situations, the Tribunal has granted interim order is noted only for the purpose of rejecting the same as precedents do not apply in the matter of grant of interim prayer and it would depend on the facts of each case.

¶47

We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected .

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26828-DB WP No. 16506 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

It is open for the petitioner to seek early disposal of the application before the Tribunal. If such prayer is made, we are sure that the Tribunal would consider the same and take up the application for disposal, as expeditiously as possible.

¶51

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶52

SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶53

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri B N Nataraja, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Nataraja, 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

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Income Tax Officer Vs Smt. Praveena Kumari

Sri. Shashidhar M Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ambika, Vs the State of Karnataka