Dismissed¶58

Smt Mahalakshmi M v. the State of Karnataka

Service law – Transfer – Incidence of service, not condition of service

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026WP/28914/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Food Shirastedar transfer; transfer as incidence of service, not condition of service; no vested right to particular post; KSAT Application No.1044/2025 order dated 21.07.2025; O.M. dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-R1) withdrawal of transfer to Mandya not disclosed to Tribunal; O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6) posting respondent No.3 to Mandya; Tribunal order dated 09.11.2023 in Application No.2946/2023 (Sri M.P. Mohan Kumar); petitioner continued at Malavalli; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer is not a condition of service but only an incidence of service; the petitioner cannot claim a right to any particular post. ¶53

Smt Mahalakshmi M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.07.2025 in Application No.1044/2025 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, rejecting the petitioner's challenge to O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6) posting respondent No.3 as Food Shirastedar, Mandya Taluk, is liable to be quashed and the application allowed. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

Transfer is not a condition of service but only an incidence of service; the petitioner cannot claim a right to any particular post.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

It was the duty of the petitioner as well as the Government to bring to the notice of the Tribunal the O.M. cancelling the petitioner's posting to Mandya; the petitioner has not questioned the said O.M. cancelling her posting to Mandya.

¶54

Key takeaways

The petitioner was continued as Food Shirastedar at Malavalli under O.M. dated 10.08.2023 and was working there when respondent No.3 was posted to Mandya under O.M. dated 10.09.2024; she therefore could not question the latter O.M. without questioning the former.ratio¶58
The Court was not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order; finding no merit in the writ petition, it stands rejected.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Transfer — Incidence of service, not condition of service — No right to a particular post. Petitioner (Food Shirastedar) was posted to Mandya; that posting was challenged by the incumbent Sri M.P. Mohan Kumar in Application No.2946/2023, which was disposed of directing his continuance till retirement (February 2024) and the petitioner to report thereafter. Before the Tribunal's order dated 09.11.2023, the Government withdrew the petitioner's transfer under O.M. dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-R1); the withdrawal was not disclosed to the Tribunal and was never questioned by the petitioner, who continued at Malavalli. O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6) posted respondent No.3 as Food Shirastedar, Mandya; the petitioner's challenge was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2025 in Application No.1044/2025. Held, writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed: the petitioner, working at Malavalli and not having questioned the O.M. continuing her there, could not challenge respondent No.3's posting to Mandya.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 28914 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI M., WIFE OF LATE ST.POORNACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶13

PRESENTLY WORKING AS FOOD SIRASTHEDAR, MALAVALLI TALUK OFFICER, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 432.

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND RESIDING AT OPPOSITE OF AMBEDKAR BHAVANA, DC OFFICER ROAD, MANDYA 571 401.

¶16

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560 052.

¶23

FARAHANA TABASSUM, AGED MAJOR AND PRESENTLY WORKING AS FOOD SIRATHEDAR, MANDYA 571 401.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21^ST OF JULY 2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.1044 OF 2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, (ANNEXURED) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

The petitioner, a Food Shirastedar, is before this Court

¶32

questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 21.07.2025 in Application No.1044/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

'the Tribunal') whereunder, the petitioner's challenge to O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6) posting respondent No.3 as Food Shirastedar, Mandya Taluk, is rejected.

¶37

Heard Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advcoate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when she was working as Food Shirastedar at Malavalli, she was transferred and posted to Taluk Office, Mandya in place of one Sri.M.P. Mohan Kumar. The said order was challenged by the said in Sri.M.P. Mohan Kumar in Application No.2946/2023 before the Tribunal. The said challenge was disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to continue Sri.M.P. Mohan Kumar till end of February 2024 that is, till his retirement and thereafter, directed respondent No.4 (petitioner herein) to report to duty.

¶39

3.1 In the meanwhile, before passing the order by the Tribunal, under O.M. dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-R1), the order of transferring the petitioner to Mandya as Food

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Shirastedar was withdrawn, which was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the petitioner or by the respondent-State Authorities, which resulted in passing of the order by the Tribunal on 09.11.2023. The petitioner said to have submitted representation to implement the order dated 09.11.2023, which was not considered. Subsequently, under impugned O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6), respondent No.3 herein was posted as Food Shirastedar, Mandya Taluk. Questioning the posting of respondent No.3 to Mandya and claiming that the petitioner ought to have been permitted to report at Mandya, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above-stated application. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 21.07.2025, rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that when the Tribunal passed the order on 09.11.2023, the O.M. dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-R1) cancelling the petitioner's transfer to Mandya was not brought to the notice of the Court. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶43

Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the post at Mandya is vacant since Sri.M.P.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Mohan Kumar retired from service in February-2024. Further, learned counsel would submit that unless the Government gets the order dated 09.11.2023 in Application No.2946/2023 reviewed, the respondents could not have posted respondent No.3 under impugned O.M. dated 10.09.2024. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to examine the validity of the impugned O.M. dated 10.09.2024 and rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the transfer was already implemented. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶47

Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government

¶48

Advocate would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would further submits that the petitioner is continued as Food Shirastedar at Taluk Office, Malavalli under O.M. dated 10.08.2023 and she is functioning at Taluk Office, Malavalli. Therefore, she could not have challenged the posting of respondent No.3 as Food Shirastedar to Taluk Office, Mandya. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶50

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

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is well settled that transfer is not a condition of service and it is only an incidence of service. The petitioner cannot claim right to any particular post.

¶54

The petitioner was admittedly posted to Taluk Office, Mandya as Food Shirastedar, which was challenged in Application No.2946/2023 by one Sri.M.P. Mohan Kumar. The said application was disposed of and the petitioner was permitted to report after February-2024. However, in the meanwhile, the Government had withdrawn the order posting the petitioner to Mandya, which was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. As the O.M. dated 10.08.2023, cancelling the petitioner's posting to Mandya was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded to pass such an order. It was the duty of the petitioner as well as the Government to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal when such O.M. was issued cancelling the posting of petitioner. The petitioner has also not questioned the said O.M. cancelling her posting to Mandya. Be that as it may. The petitioner was continued as Food Shirastear, Malavalli under O.M. dated 10.08.2023 and she

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:14069-DB WP No. 28914 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

continued from 2023 onwards till this date she is working. Now when respondent No.3 was posted under O.M. dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-A6) as Food Shirastedar, Mandya District, the petitioner was not in Mandya and she was at Malavalli. Therefore, she could not have questioned the said O.M. dated 10.09.2024 at all without questioning the O.M. dated 10.08.2023 continuing her at Malavalli. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶59

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶61

VBS

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt Mahalakshmi M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahalakshmi 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

Sumithra Vs Sundar Poojary

Mr. Krishna M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Loknatha M D Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmidevi Vs the Depo Manager

Sri. P. Bala Murali Krishna Vs the Deputy Secretary

Shri R Vinay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka