Sri Parashuram Daddinavar v. The State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:24661-DB WP(No.(14826(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(7 (DAY(OF(MAY,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(SACHIN(SHANKAR(MAGADUM( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(RAJESH(RAI(K( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(14826(OF(2026((S-KSAT) BETWEEN:( , SRI,PARASHURAM,DADDINAVAR, AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS,,, WAS,WORKING,AS,TALUK,EXTENSION,OFFICER,, MINORITIES,WELFARE,DEPARTMENT,,, MOULANA,AZAD,BHAVAN,,NEAR,SHOBHA,GARDEN,, OPPOSITE,TO,DANDINA,MARAMMANA,TEMPLE,, MYSORE,-,BANGALORE,ROAD,,MYSORE,570,007,, THRESIDING,AT,NO.,416,,14 ,CROSS,,, NEAR,HP,PETROL,BUNK,,RAGHAVENDRA,NAGAR,, MYSORE,570,029,,PH:,99808,00076, Digitallytisigned EMAIL,ID:, by0PANKAJA0S PARASHURAMDADDINAVAR199@GMAIL.COM, Location:0HIGH …PETITIONER,COURT0OF KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,SATISH,.K,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT,OF,MINORITY,WELFARE,,, HAJ,AND,WAKF,,REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, VIKASA,SOUDHA,,BANGALORE,-,560,001.,

2., THE,DIRECTOR,, DIRECTORATE,OF,MINORITIES,,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:24661-DB WP(No.(14826(of(2026 V.,V.,TOWER,,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,, BANGALORE-560,001.,

3., SRL.,SWAMY,K.N., FATHER'S,NAME,NOT,KNOWN,TO,THE,PETITIONER,, MAJOR,, WAS,WORKING,AS,HOSTEL,WARDEN,, MINORITIES,POST,METRIC,BOYS,HOSTEL,,, HUNSUR,,MYSORE,DISTRICT,-,571,105., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,B.P.,RADHA,,AGA,FOR,R1,&,R2,, ,,,,,,SRI.,BASAVARAJ,PATIL,.G.K,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R3), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 28/04/2026, PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE, TRIBUNAL,, BANGALORE, IN, APPLICATION, NO.2369/2026,, IN, SO, FAR, AS, REJECTION,OF,INTERIM,ORDER,OF,STAY,AS,SOUGHT,FOR,BY, THE, PETITIONER, IS, CONCERNED, (ANNEXURE-A), AND, CONSEQUENTLY, GRANT, INTERIM, RELIEF, AS, PRAYED, FOR, BY, THE,PETITIONER,IN,APPLICATION,NO.2369/2026,(ANNEXURE-B),AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SACHIN,SHANKAR,MAGADUM and, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,RAJESH,RAI,K

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity, "Tribunal") in Application No.2369/2026 dated 28.04.2026, wherein the Tribunal declined to grant interim order of staying the operation, execution and implementation of Memorandum dated 16.04.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A8.

¶2The briefly stated facts of the case are that: The petitioner, while serving as Office Superintendent in the Department of Minorities Welfare, Mysore, came to be posted as Taluk Extension Officer, Department of Minorities, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, in place of respondent No.3, vide notification dated

10.10.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.4856/2024. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2024. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner reported for duty as Taluk Extension Officer, Mysore Sub-Division, on 26.12.2024.

¶3It is the grievance of the petitioner that, within a short span of about one year and four months from the date of his posting, he has again been displaced and respondent No.3 has been transferred to the post held by the petitioner vide memorandum dated 16.04.2026, produced at Annexure-A8. According to the petitioner, the said transfer is premature, arbitrary and in contravention of the transfer guidelines governing the field.

¶4Aggrieved by the said memorandum, the petitioner instituted Application No.2369/2026 before the Tribunal and sought an interim order to stay the operation and implementation of the memorandum dated 16.04.2026 issued by respondent No.1. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, declined to grant the interim relief sought for. Aggrieved by the same, the present lis is before this Court.

¶5We have heard Sri. Sathish. K, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.P. Radha., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Basavaraj Patil G.K., learned counsel for the respondent No.3 so also perused the documents placed before us.

¶6On careful perusal of the impugned order dated

28.04.2026 passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal, while considering the matter, has categorically observed that respondent No.3 had already reported for duty and that the memorandum dated 16.04.2026 produced at Annexure-A8 had been partially implemented. On the said premise, the Tribunal held that no merit was made out in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was directed to be listed on 03.06.2026 for filing of the reply statement by the respondents.

¶7The impugned order further discloses that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were holding posts one grade higher than their substantive eligibility and were working on their own pay scale. The Tribunal has further observed that such postings were purely temporary arrangements made on account of administrative exigencies. In that view of the matter, it was held that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.3 could claim any fixed tenure in the posts to which they had been posted and that the petitioner had no vested right to continue in the higher post.

¶8These aspects of the matter require deeper consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner. No good ground is made out warranting interference with the impugned order or for grant of the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶9Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is requested to expedite the disposal of the application and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10The observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of the Tribunal while disposing the application. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39