Sri. A.V Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. A.V SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O LATE. VENKATACHALAPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, TAHSILDAR GRADE-1, (WAITING FOR POSTING) R/AT AMMAGARIPET, JINKALAVARIPALLI, KOLAR, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN-563134.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M.A., ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

AND: Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

¶16

KUM. SHWETHA B.K, D/O V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR GRADE-1,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1679-DB WP No. 35832 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHELURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-56312

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI T NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. FOR SRI RAGHUPATHI P., ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 19/11/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3475/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

[ 1. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 3475/2025, aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, has preferred the present writ petition.

¶28

The brief facts are that, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Tahsildar Grade–II, Cheluru Taluk on 28.02.2024 and assumed charge on 01.03.2024. During the Parliamentary elections, the petitioner was

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1679-DB WP No. 35832 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

transferred to the post of Tahsildar Grade–I, Mulki Taluk. After completion of the elections, by notification dated 16.07.2025, the third respondent was transferred to the post held by the petitioner, and the petitioner was not given any posting. Aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the order of transfer had already been implemented, rejected the application.

¶32

Sri Subramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the transfer is premature. It is contended that the transfer has been effected at the instance of the recommendation made by the local MLA, as reflected in Annexure-R1, and is therefore arbitrary. Learned counsel further submits that there are no allegations against the petitioner nor is any enquiry pending, warranting a recommendation for transfer by the MLA.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1679-DB WP No. 35832 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned AGA Sri. V Shivarerddy appears for

¶36

respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri. T Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the impugned order of transfer has been issued in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines and with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the local MLA is competent to make a request for transfer in the interest of administrative convenience, and that such request was duly considered, pursuant to which the transfer was effected with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.

¶38

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was posted as Tahsildar, Grade–II, Cheluru Taluk on 28.02.2024 and was transferred on 16.07.2025 without

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1679-DB WP No. 35832 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

being given any posting, by posting respondent No.3 in his place. The transfer was effected within a period of less than eighteen months. It is also to be noted that the transfer was made pursuant to the

¶43

request/recommendation of the local MLA and with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The transfer notification further indicates that a group of officers of the Revenue Department were transferred. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioner was made solely on the basis of the recommendation of the local MLA.

¶44

Be that as it may, it cannot be held that a transfer cannot be effected on the recommendation of the local MLA, if administrative exigencies so require and such transfer is made with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, as permitted under the Transfer Guidelines.

¶45

Sri Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that under the impugned order, the

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1679-DB WP No. 35832 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioner was transferred without being given any posting and that even after the lapse of more than five months, no posting was assigned. The learned Additional Government Advocate, along with a memo dated 12.01.2026, has produced a notification dated 12.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has been given posting as Tahsildar in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District. We take note that the petitioner was transferred without posting in the month of July, 2025 and remained without posting till 12.01.2026. The said period shall have to be treated as compulsory waiting period and petitioner would be entitled for pay and allowances. It is fit case to order recovery of the salary paid to petitioner during no posting period from the concerned with a hope and expectation that such incidences will not be reoccurred, we take lenient view.

¶49