Sri Jagadeesh Kumar M Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI JAGADEESH KUMAR M., S/O. LATE K. MADAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI SRIKANTESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, NANJANAGUDU, MYSURU DISTRICT, R/AT No.17, 23^RD BLOCK, SBM COLONY, SRIRAMPURA 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU - 570 026.

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE (RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS), REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALULRU - 560 001.

¶19

SRI KRISHNA C.G., AGED MAJOR WORKING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SRI NIMISHAMBA TEMPLE, GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1., SRI A VISHWANATH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/08/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.No.2953/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶31

Heard Sri B. Vinayaka, learned counsel for the petitioner;

¶32

Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri A. Vishwanath Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.2953/2025 has preferred the present writ petition assailing the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The petitioner was promoted from the post of First Division Assistant to Tahsildar-Religious Endowment (Group-B) and was transferred as Executive Officer (Group-A Junior Scale) at Anantapadmanabha Temple, Kudupu, Dakshina Kannada District, vide notification dated 22.01.2021. He was thereafter transferred and posted as Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu, vide notification dated 13.09.2022.

¶38

2.1 The post of Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara

¶39

Temple, Nanjangudu, is an encadred post of a Group-A Senior Scale Officer. While so posted, the petitioner was promoted to Group-A Senior Scale and continued as Executive Officer at Nanjangudu. Subsequently, vide notification dated 30.06.2024, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Executive Officer at Sri Siddalingeshwara Temple, Yediyur, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, and the second respondent was posted in his place.

¶40

2.2 Aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an application, which came to

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

be rejected. Challenging the said order of rejection, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶45

Sri Vinayaka B., learned counsel appearing for the

¶46

petitioner, submits that the post of Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple is an encadred post of a Group-A Senior Scale Officer. It is submitted that although the petitioner was initially posted on 22.01.2021 as Executive Officer in the Group-A Junior Scale, he was promoted to the Group-A Senior Scale on 13.03.2024 and was continued in the said post pursuant to the CTC dated 13.03.2024.

¶47

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that since the post

¶48

of Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple is an encadred post of a Group-A Senior Scale Officer, the petitioner must be deemed to have been posted to the said post in that capacity with effect from 13.03.2024, from which date he became entitled to the minimum tenure of posting. Viewed thus, it is contended that the transfer effected vide notification dated 30.06.2024 is premature.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the second

¶53

respondent is a Group-A Junior Scale Officer and, as such, is not eligible to be posted as Executive Officer at

¶54

Sri Srikanteshwara Temple.

¶55

Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, inviting the attention of this Court to the affidavit dated 08.09.2025, submits that Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu, and Sri Siddalingeshwara Temple, Yediyur, are Category-A temples, where Group-A Senior Scale Officers are required to be posted as Executive Officers. Learned AGA further submits that the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu, on 13.09.2022 and has completed the minimum tenure of posting.

¶56

4.1 Learned AGA further submits that the period during which the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer prior to his promotion to the Group-A Senior Scale is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of tenure. It is further submitted that there are 22 Category-A temples in the State, whereas only seven Group-A Senior Scale Officers are available in the department.

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Owing to administrative exigencies, Group-A Junior Scale Officers are also posted as Executive Officers in Category-A temples.

¶61

Sri A. Vishwanath Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supports and reiterates the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.

¶62

We have considered the submissions of learned

¶63

counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.

¶64

The petitioner was posted as Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu, against a vacant post on 13.09.2022. The said posting was a regular posting. Though the petitioner was then a Group-A Junior Scale Officer, he was posted to an encadred post of a Group-A Senior Scale Officer owing to the non-availability of Group-A Senior Scale Officers. While serving in the said post, the petitioner was promoted to the Group-A Senior Scale and continued in the same post even after such promotion. The petitioner has thus completed more

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

than two years of service as Executive Officer at

¶69

Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu.

¶70

The petitioner has now been transferred as

¶71

Executive Officer to Sri Siddalingeshwara Temple, Yediyur, which is also a Category-A temple. Once the petitioner had completed the minimum tenure of posting at Nanjangudu, the mere fact that he has been replaced by a Group-A Junior Scale Officer does not confer upon the petitioner any right to continue in the said post. Respondent No.1 has explained in the affidavit the reasons for posting a Group-A Junior Scale Officer as Executive Officer to a Category-A temple.

¶72

Transfer of a public servant is an incidence of service and, as such, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The State Government is entitled to transfer public servants in administrative exigencies and in the interest of public convenience.

¶73

The reliance placed on the Circular dated 12.09.2023 issued by the State Government to contend that a Group-A Junior Scale Officer cannot be posted to a higher cadre

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

post is of no assistance in the facts of the present case. As stated by the State in its affidavit, when Group-A Senior Scale Officers are not available, the posting of Group-A Junior Scale Officers to such posts cannot be faulted.

¶78

This ground is also unavailable to the petitioner for yet another reason, when the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu, the temple was a Category-A temple and the petitioner was a Group-A Junior Scale Officer. Such posting did not confer upon the petitioner any additional or vested right to continue in the said post. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim a right to continue at Sri Srikanteshwara Temple merely because he has been replaced by a Group-A Junior Scale Officer, particularly when he has been transferred as Executive Officer to another Category-A temple after completion of the minimum tenure of posting.

¶79

The Tribunal, after noticing that the petitioner had completed the minimum tenure of posting and that another officer had been posted in his place, held that such circumstances do not confer any locus standi upon the

¶80

9 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:50-DB WP No. 26068 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

petitioner to question the transfer or to seek continuance in the said post. It was further held that the transfer of the petitioner was not premature nor effected to accommodate any other candidate or public servant so as to warrant interference with the order of transfer.

¶84

The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶85

Pending I.A's if any, stand disposed of.

¶86

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶87

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶88

DDU

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Jagadeesh Kumar M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadeesh Kumar M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Sri Dharanendra Swamy K S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nalina. G. a. Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri H K Thippeswamy

Rajeshwari M Vs the State of Karnataka

Renuka K Vs the State of Karnataka