Sri. B.G. Ramesha v. State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43421( WP(No.(9980(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010232812026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ASHOK(S.KINAGI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(9980(OF(2026((S-TR)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SRI.,B.G.,RAMESHA, S/O,B.K.,GANGAMARAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS,, PRESENTLY,WORKING,AS,REVENUE,OFFICER,,, TOWN,MUNICIPAL,COUNCIL,,, KONAPPAN,AGRAHARA,,, BENGALURU-,560,100,,, R/AT,NO.,98,,3RD,CROSS,,ULLALA,MAIN,ROAD,, BHARATH,NAGAR,,2ND,STAGE,,BEL,LAYOUT,, BENGALURU-,560,091, …PETITIONER, Digitally , signedtiby (BY,SRI.,SHIVAPRASAD,SHANTANAGOUDAR.,,ADVOCATE),SHILPABAI0S ,Location: HIGH0COURT AND:( OF ( KARNATAKA

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT,OF,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,, VIKASA,SOUDHA,,, BENGALURU-560,001,,, REP.,BY,ITS,UNDER,SECRETARY, ,

2., CHIEF,OFFICER, MUNICIPAL,COUNCIL,,, KONAPPANA,AGRAHARA,, BENGALURU,SOUTH,TALUK,,, BENGALURU-,560,002, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43421( WP(No.(9980(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010232812026( ( (

3., SRI.,V.,NAGESH, AGED,ABOUT,MAJOR,, PRESENTLY,WORKING,AS,REVENUE,OFFICER,,, TOWN,MUNICIPAL,COUNCIL,,, HUNASAMARANAHALLI,,, BENGALURU-,562,157, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SMT.,ASHVINI,PATIL,,AGA,FOR,R1, ,,,,,,SRI.,B,S,GOUTHAM,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3, ,,,,,,SRI.,M,S,DEVARAJU,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND, 227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE, OFFICIAL,MEMORANDUM,BEARING,NO.,NA.A.E.,13,T.M.S.2026,

(E),DATED,26.03.2026,ISSUED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT,NO.,1,AT, ANNEXURE-D,INSOFAR,AS,PETITIONER,IS,CONCERNED., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,ASHOK,S.KINAGI, , ORAL(ORDER( The, petitioner, filed, this, writ, petition, seeking, the, following,reliefs:, "a),, Issue,a,writ,in,the,nature,of,Certiorari,or,any,other, writ, and, thereby, quash, the, Official, Memorandum, bearing, No., Na.A.E., 13, T.M.S., 2026, (E), dated,

26.03.2026, issued, by, the, Respondent, No., 1, at, Annexure-D,insofar,as,Petitioner,is,concerned;,

b) Pass such other order as it deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶2Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner is working as a Revenue Officer, Town Municipal Council, Konappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. On 31.07.2024, respondent No.1 issued an official memorandum transferring the petitioner from Revenue Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hunasamaranahalli to Konappana Agrahara with immediate effect. The petitioner took charge at the new posting on 19.08.2024. On

04.03.2026, the District Commissioner issued an official memorandum appointing the petitioner as an Officer-in-charge for the Census of India-2027 within the limits of Electronic City Industrial Township Authority (ELCITA), Bengaluru, thereby reposing confidence in the petitioner. On 26.03.2026, respondent No.1 issued the impugned official memorandum transferring the petitioner from his

present posting, within less than 2 years of his joining. It is contended that, the Government of Karnataka, vide its order dated 12.05.2025, has expressly stipulated that Group-C employees must complete a minimum tenure of 4 years before being transferred. Contrary to this clear directive, the petitioner has been prematurely transferred within less than 2 years of his previous transfer dated

31.07.2024, which is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines. It is also contended that, the Home Secretary, Government of India, vide circular dated 11.03.2026, has expressly directed that census functionaries appointed for Census-2027 shall not be transferred till 31.03.2027. The petitioner, having been appointed as an Officer-in-charge for Census-2027 in the limits of ELCITA, Bengaluru, on

04.03.2026, is squarely protected under the said circular. The impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the said circular. Hence, this petition.

¶3Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections denying all the allegations made in the memorandum of

writ petition. It is contended that, the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts. It is also contended that, the impugned official memorandum dated

26.03.2026 is valid, legal and enforceable order issued by the competent authority. The said order has been issued after obtaining the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, which is a mandatory prerequisite for any premature transfer as per the Government's own Transfer Guidelines. The contention of the petitioner that the transfer is 'premature' and is in violation of the Government order dated 12.02.2025, is wholly untenable. The impugned order of transfer was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 11.11.2025. It is contended that, judicial review in the matters of employee transfers is well settled. It is contended that, transfer is an incident of a service and an administrative decision. The scope of judicial interference is limited to the cases where the order

is vitiated by mala fides, is in violation of statutory provisions or passed by an incompetent authority. It is contended that, the impugned order of transfer is from Town Municipal Council, Konappana Agrahara to Town Municipal Council, Hunasamaranahalli, both of which are situated within Bengaluru Urban and constitute the same headquarters. As per Rule 8(49) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules ('KCSR' for short), 'transfer' is defined as the movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station to another. Mere change of office within the same headquarters does not amount to a transfer in the strict legal sense. It is contended, that Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. He/she is liable to be transferred from one place to another. It is also contended that, respondent No.3 has already handed over the charge of the post of Revenue Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hunasamaranahalli. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶4Respondent No.1-State has filed a statement of objections contending that, the petitioner was working as at Town Municipal Council, Konappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District had deputed him to the census work at Electronic City Industrial Township Authority jurisdiction on

04.03.2026. While the petitioner was in census work, respondent No.3 was transferred and posted in place of the petitioner. After census work, the petitioner has to report before respondent No.1 for further postings. The transfer was made with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and in the administrative and public interest. It is contended that, the petitioner cannot claim transfer as a matter of right. The State Government is always at liberty to transfer its servants under the exigencies of service. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶5Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Revenue Officer, Town Municipal Council, Konappana Agrahara on

31.07.2024. The petitioner took charge on 19.08.2024. The District Commissioner has issued an official memorandum appointing the petitioner as an Officer-in-charge for the census work for the Census of India-2027. He further submits that, the Government of India has issued a circular dated 11.03.2026 directing the census functionaries appointed for Census-2027 shall not be transferred till 31.03.2027. The petitioner is fully covered under the protection of the circular dated 11.03.2026 and the transfer order is in violation of the circular dated

11.03.2026. It is further submitted that, the impugned order of transfer is premature and is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶7Per contra, learned AGA submits that, the order of transfer is in the administrative and public interest, and the same is approved by the Chief Minister as per the Government order dated

12.05.2025. Though the petitioner has not completed the minimum tenure of 4 years in his posting, however, the transfer order was made with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. She further submits that, the order of transfer of a single servant is not only an incidence of service, but also an implied condition of service. She submits that, the scope of judicial interference in the order of transfer is very limited, provided if the petitioner establishes that the order of transfer is mala fide and is in violation of transfer guidelines. She submits that, the order of transfer is in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines and no violation of Rules. Learned AGA has produced a copy of the e-note sheet of the Urban Development Authority pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner, wherein the Chief Minister has approved the transfer of the petitioner which is in

accordance with the Transfer Guidelines. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶8Learned counsel for respondent No.3 adopts the arguments of the learned AGA for respondent No.1, and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶9Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10It is an undisputed fact that on 31.07.2024, the petitioner was posted as a Revenue Officer in Town Municipal Council, Konappana Agrahara, Bengaluru and he reported and took charge at the place posting on

19.08.2024. On 04.03.2026, the District Commissioner issued an official memorandum appointing the petitioner as an Officer-in-charge for the work of the Census of India-2027 in the limits of ELCITA, Bengaluru. Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned official memorandum dated

26.03.2026 transferring the petitioner from his present posting within less than 2 years. As per the Transfer

Guidelines, if any transfer is to be made before completion of the tenure, the prior approval of the Chief Minister is pre-requisite.

¶11Admittedly, in the instant case, the order of transfer of the petitioner was duly approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister vide Letter No.E CM/11222571/2025 dated

11.11.2025. Respondent No.3 has produced a copy of the said letter dated marked as Annexure-R1. The order of transfer is in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines.

¶12From the perusal of the records, it clearly discloses that, the impugned order of transfer is approved by the Chief Minister. The petitioner has no vested right to continue in the same place. The petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned order of transfer is with a mala fide intention, or has been issued in violation of statutory provisions, or the same is passed by an incompetent authority.

¶13Further, as per Rule 8(49) of the KCSR, transfer is defined as a movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station to another. Mere change of office within the same headquarters does not amount to a transfer. Admittedly, in the instant case, the order of transfer is within the headquarters. Hence, the impugned order of transfer is in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines.

¶14In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed; ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16