Sri K G Amaranath Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri K G Amaranath Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the second respondent was premature, in violation of the transfer guidelines and/or issued by an incompetent authority. +3 more

Court's answer

A transfer is not a condition of service but an incident of service; the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, challenge a transfer order — it may be questioned only where it is made in violation of statutory guidelines or on the ground of mala fides.

Ratio / Principle

Appointments of officers to the local authority/municipality must be of officers belonging to the KMAS; the petitioner is not a KMAS officer (he is in the Senior Health Inspector cadre), whereas respondent No.3 is qualified to be the Chief Officer of the local authority/municipality.

Key takeaways

Where a non-KMAS officer is posted to work as an Officer (Chief Officer), the transfer guidelines are not applicable, as the order posting the petitioner as Chief Officer itself makes clear.ratio¶¶80
Considering the earlier order of this Court in the case of Sri Shashidara (Shashidar Channappa Kagawad, supra), the court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition.ratio¶¶81

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice Ashok S. Kinagi), Writ Petition No. 16539 of 2026 (S-RES), decided 03.07.2026 — DISMISSED. The petitioner, K.G. Amaranath, a Group-C Senior Health Inspector (non-KMAS cadre) working as Chief Officer Grade-II, Bashettihalli Town Panchayath, sought certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 to quash his transfer order dated 30-05-2026 (No.2159019/DMA/EST2/TRF/2/2026) passed by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration (second respondent), pleading prematurity, violation of transfer guidelines, absence of reasons and an incompetent authority. Held (oral order): transfer is an incident of service, not a condition of service, and is challengeable only for violation of statutory guidelines or mala fide; under Section 365, Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, officers of local authorities/municipalities must belong to KMAS, so the petitioner (Senior Health Inspector, non-KMAS) has no vested right to the statutory Chief Officer post against a qualified KMAS officer (respondent No.3, Ravindra B.J.); where a non-KMAS officer is posted as Chief Officer the transfer guidelines do not apply. Following this Court's order in Sri. Shashidar Channappa Kagawad Vs. The State of Karnataka (W.P.No.146931/2020, disposed 04.12.2020), and the co-ordinate bench orders in WP No. 34611/2017 (03.08.2017) and W.P.No.8534/2020 (25.09.2020) quoted therein, the court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it; pending interlocutory applications do not survive. Respondent No.3 had already assumed charge at Bashettihally on 03.06.2026, before the petition was filed on 04.06.2026.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 16539 OF 2026 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.G. AMARANATH S/O. LATE T. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS A CHIEF OFFICER, GRADE-II, BASHETTIHALLI TOWN PANCHAYATH, BASHETTIHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. RESIDING AT NO.80, 6TH CROSS, ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V. GOPURA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

SRI. RAVINDRA B.J, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

PRESENTLY WORKING AS A CHIEF OFFICER, KAIWARA TOWN MUNICIPAL PANCHAYATH, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 128.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 30-05-2026 BEARING NO.2159019/ DMA/EST2/TRF/2/2026 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this petition seeking the following

relief:

a) Issue Writ of CERTIORARI by quashing the impugned Order of transfer dated 30-052026 bearing No.2159019/DMA/ EST2/TRF/2/2026 passed by the 2^nd Respondent as per ANNEXURE-A.

b) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as follows:

Respondent No. 3 is a Grade-I Officer, was posted to the post of Chief Officer, Grade-I, Kaiwara Pattana Panchayath by virtue of a Notification dated 09.03.2026. The petitioner was transferred to Pattana Panchayath, Bashettihalli, Doddballapura Taluk to the post of Chief Officer, Grade-II on 13.05.2026. The petitioner made a request to the Deputy Commissioner to change the login for census 2026, since it was in the login of earlier Chief Officer vide representation dated 25.05.2026. The second respondent has passed an impugned order of transfer dated 30.05.2026. The petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is a premature, is in violation of transfer guidelines and is against the transfer guidelines and is an incompetent authority. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the Writ Petition.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

Respondent No. 3 filed statement of objections

denying the allegations made in the memorandum of Writ Petition and contended that the petitioner has filed this Petition on 04.06.2026 falsely claiming that he continued

to work in the present place as a Chief Officer, Bashettihally Town Municipal Council, Doddaballapura Taluk. In reality, respondent No. 3 had already taken the charge of the post of Chief Officer of Bashettihally Town Municipal Council on 03.06.2026 itself, that is prior to the filing of Writ Petition. Respondent No. 3 has produced the records to show that he has assumed the charge of the post on 03.06.2026.

It is also contented that the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Group –C - Senior Health Inspector post. He has posted to Bashettihally in his own pay scale temporarily and is not a Karnataka Municipal

Administrative Service cadre officer. A non-cadre Official has absolutely no legal or vested right to occupy a statutory cadre post, once qualified cadre Officer is

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

appointed. Respondent No. 3 is the regular holder of the post of Chief Officer and he is a Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service (KMAS for short) Officer. It is contented that as per the General Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024, protected the petitioner's tenure of 2 years is wholly untenable under law and it is contented that respondent No. 3 is a Grade-I Officer and hence, incompetent to hold Grade -II post at Bashettihally is a gross misinterpretation of administrative rules. It is contented that Section 327 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act explicitly mandates that every Municipal Council/Town Panchayat shall have a Chief Officer appointed among the persons in the cadre of Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of transfer is premature and

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

issued by the incompetent authority. The impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Guidelines. He also submits that the order of transfer is without assigning any reason. To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance

on the order of the Division Bench in the case of Smt. P.

V. Poornima Vs. State of Karnataka and others in WP

No. 2661/2020 disposed of on 29.07.2020. Hence, on this ground he prays to allow the writ petition.

Per Contra learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post of Chief Officer. The petitioner’s posting to the post of Chief Officer was only an interim measure. The petitioner has no vested right to continue in the post of the Chief Officer, Pattana Panchayath. He also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the case of Sri. Shashidar

Channappa Kagawad Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.146931/2020 disposed of on 04.12.2020 . He

submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

covered by the order passed by this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned Government advocate submits that the

transfer order is in the interest of public at large and it is for administrative reasons. Hence, on this ground he prays to dismiss the petition.

Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Health Officer whereas, respondent No. 3 was appointed in the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has challenged the order of transfer. The transfer is not a conditioned service. The transfer is only an incident of the service. As such, as a matter of right the petitioner cannot challenge the order of transfer. The transfer order could be challenged when it is made in violation of statutory guidelines or on the ground of malafide. As per Section 365 of the Karnataka Municipal

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

Corporation Act, 1976 provides an appointment of an Officer to the local authority or municipality, an officer belonging to the KMAS. The petitioner does not belong to an Officer of grade of KMAS. On the contrary, respondent no. 3 is an officer of KMAS. This Court had an occasion to consider the identical facts in the case of Sri. Shashidar Channappa Kagawad (supra) wherein this Court, relying upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP No. 34611/2017 , disposed of 03.08.2017 has held as follows:

16. The Co-ordinate Bench o f this Nos . in an identical circumstance in W .P.No.34611/2017, disposed of on 03.08.2017 at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has held as follows:

“10. A bare perusal of Section 365(1) of the Act, clearly reveals that the provision begins with a nonobstante clause, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force”. The said provision also imposes a legal duty on the Government to appoint the Officers to the local authorities from the

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

persons belonging to the KMAS. Once a mandatory, and legal duty has been imposed upon the State , the State is required to fulfill the same . therefore , in the light of Section 365(1) of the Act , the Transfer Policy cannot stand in the way.

10. Admittedly , the petitioner belong to a non-KMAS cadre, whereas , the respondent No.4 does belong to the KMAS cadre. Therefore, the State is justified in replacing the petitioner with the respondent No.4.”

and also in W.P.No.8534/2020 disposed of on 25.09.2020 has held that the appointment of Officer to the local authorities or municipality should be an officer belonging to Karnataka Municipal Administrative Services.”

In the present case, as observed above, the petitioner is not a KMAS Officer. The petitioner is in the cadre of Senior Health Inspector and the respondent No.3 is qualified to be the Chief Officer of the local authority or

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33513 WP No. 16539 of 2026

HC-KAR

municipality. The order by which the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer makes it clear that when the non-KMAS officer is posted to work as an Officer, the transfer guidelines would not be applicable. Considering the order

passed by this Court in the case of Sri Shashidara , referred supra, I do not find any grounds to entertain the Writ Petition.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition is dismissed .

Pending I.A.s do not survive for consideration.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19