Disposed¶12

Mr N D Hanume Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/9635/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature transfer — Group-C Surveyor, four-year tenure under transfer guidelines, transferred at 3½ years — tenure not measurable with mathematical precision — transfer without posting — cured by subsequent posting O.M. dated 27.03.2026 (ADLR office, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District) — hardship plea, aged father, children studying at Mysuru — liberty to seek alternate posting by representation — Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Application No. 4367/2025, order dated 16.03.2026 — MUDA Mysuru — Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India — writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned O.M. dated 10.10.2025; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek alternate posting by representation, to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. ¶12

Mr N D Hanume Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned O.M. dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-A5), posting the fourth respondent in the petitioner's place and transferring the petitioner, requires interference.

¶8

Court's answer

Tenure cannot be measured with mathematical precision; a Group-C employee who has completed 3½ years of a four-year tenure under the transfer guidelines is nearing completion of tenure, so the transfer before the full four years is not premature and the contention of premature transfer fails.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner was initially transferred without any posting, the grievance of non-provision of posting does not survive because under O.M. dated 27.03.2026 he has been provided posting as Surveyor in the office of the ADLR, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.

¶10

Key takeaways

On the hardship plea (looking after his aged father and children studying at Mysuru), it is open to the petitioner to give a representation seeking alternate posting, and the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind, JJ.), High Court of Karnataka, 02.04.2026, in Writ Petition No. 9635 of 2026 (S-KSAT): The petitioner, a Group-C Surveyor posted to MUDA, Mysuru by O.M. dated 14.10.2022, challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 16.03.2026 in Application No. 4367/2025 rejecting his objection to the transfer/posting O.M. dated 10.10.2025, under which respondent No.4 was posted in his place without any posting to him. Held: (i) tenure cannot be measured with mathematical precision; completion of 3½ years of a four-year Group-C tenure means the official is nearing completion of tenure, so the transfer was not premature; (ii) the ground of non-provision of posting did not survive, as O.M. dated 27.03.2026 (produced by memo dated 02.04.2026) posted the petitioner as Surveyor in the office of the ADLR, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District; (iii) on the hardship plea (aged father, children studying at Mysuru), liberty was given to seek alternate posting by representation, to be considered in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 9635 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. N D HANUME GOWDA S/O. LATE DOLLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS SURVEYOR, MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570 005.

¶11

ALSO AT R/A. NO.10342, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR 4^TH STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADV.)

¶12

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MDA), JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570 005.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI B. BASAVANNA,

¶21

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS. 4367/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER I.E., APPLICATION NOS. 4367/2025 BEFORE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner, a Surveyor is before this Court

¶30

questioning the order dated 16.03.2026 in Application No.4367/2025, whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to order of transfer/posting dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-A5) is rejected.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Heard learned counsel Sri.V.Srinivas for

¶34

petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶36

that the petitioner who is working as Surveyor in the Survey and Land Settlement Department was posted to work as Surveyor to the MUDA, Mysuru by O.M., dated 14.10.2022 and in pursuance to the said O.M., he is stated to have reported to duty on 05.12.2022. It is submitted that under impugned O.M., dated 10.10.2025, fourth respondent was posted in petitioner’s place while no posting was shown to the petitioner. The petitioner challenging the said O.M., was before the Tribunal in the above stated application and it is stated that the Tribunal initially+ stayed the O.M., dated 10.10.2025 and by virtue of interim order, petitioner is said to have continued as Surveyor at MUDA, Mysuru.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel Sri.V.Srinivas would submit

¶40

that the Tribunal failed to consider the petitioner’s main contention that the transfer of the petitioner and posting of respondent No.4 in his place is totally premature and in violation of transfer guidelines. Further, he submits that the respondents could not have transferred the petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a Group-C official, who is provided with four years tenure. However, he submits that the petitioner is transferred even before completion of his tenure i.e., within three years. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶41

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath files memo dated 02.04.2026 enclosing O.M., dated 27.03.2026 which provides posting to the petitioner as Surveyor, office of the ADLR, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶45

that the Surveyor post at Mysuru are vacant and as such, he prays for providing posting to the petitioner at Mysuru, since the petitioner has to look after his aged father and also submits that his children are studying at Mysuru.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that petitioner was continued by virtue of interim order till disposal of the application by the Tribunal and as on the disposal of the application, petitioner has completed more than 3 ½ years at MUDA, Mysuru. Thus, he submits that the contention of premature transfer is not available to the petitioner.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to,

¶48

Whether the impugned O.M., dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-A5) posting the fourth respondent in petitioner’s place and transferring the petitioner requires interference?

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Answer to the above point would be in the

¶52

negative for the following reasons:

¶53

The petitioner who is working as Surveyor which is a Group-C post. It is true that the transfer guidelines provides four years tenure to Group-C officials. However, as on the date of disposal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal i.e., on 16.03.2026, the petitioner has completed more than 3 ½ years service at MUDA, Mysuru. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is transferred prematurely as he had four years tenure and even before completion of four years, he is transferred. The tenure cannot be measured with a mathematical precision. If a Government servant has completed tenure of 3 ½ years out of four years, it can be said that petitioner is nearing completion of tenure, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶54

The petitioner was transferred without providing any posting while posting fourth respondent at his place at MUDA, Mysuru. However, under O.M., dated 27.03.2026,

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18064-DB WP No. 9635 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the petitioner is provided posting at the office of the ADLR,

¶58

Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. As the petitioner is provided posting, the ground of non-providing posting would also not survive for consideration.

¶59

The petitioner pleaded hardship on the ground that he has to look after his aged father and that his children are studying at Mysuru. It is open for the petitioner to give representation seeking alternate posting and it is needless to observe that the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law.

¶60