Karnataka High Court Pronounces Order in Writ Petitions Challenging Premature Transfers of Commercial Tax Officers Under Transfer Guidelines 2013. Transfer Orders Allegedly Violated Minimum Tenure Rule and Requirement of Prior Approval of Chief Minister.

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging premature transfer orders of commercial tax officers and the orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which had dismissed the officers' applications.

Petitioners sought quashing of the transfer orders dated 12.09.2023 and similar orders, and to set aside the tribunal's orders dismissing their applications, thereby restoring them to their previous postings.

The transfer orders were challenged on the ground that they violated the Karnataka Government Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013, specifically the minimum two-year tenure prescribed for Group 'A' officers and the requirement of recording reasons and obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister for premature transfers.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners (Application Nos. 4160/2023, 4057/2023, 3873/2023, 4038/2023, etc.) vide orders dated 20.10.2023 and 31.10.2023.

Whether the transfer of the petitioner before completion of two years violates Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 which prescribes a two-year lien period for Group 'A' officers. Whether the impugned transfer order was made without recording reasons as required under para 9(a)(i) to (viii) and without prior approval of the Chief Minister as mandated by para 9(b) of the Transfer Guidelines. Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the applications without considering these violations.

Petitioner was transferred within one year and two months, contrary to Rule 8 of Transfer Guidelines and the law laid down in N. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka (W.P.33158/2017) which held that transfer policy restricts unfettered power of State and gives employees a sense of security. Respondent No.3's transfer was also premature, as he had not completed two years at his previous posting. The transfer order did not specify reasons falling under para 9(a)(i) to (viii) and was made without prior approval of the Chief Minister as required under para 9(b), rendering it invalid. Reliance was placed on M. Rajashekar v. State of Karnataka (2018 SCC Online Kar 3777), which held that a premature transfer not falling under any enumerated circumstance or made without prior approval is illegal and liable to be set aside. Office notings indicated that the impugned transfer was the result of a 'Tippani' insertion, suggesting arbitrariness and lack of proper approval.

Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 ... petitioner being a Group ‘A’ Officer, is in a righteous position to hold lien over a post for a period of two years from the date of transfer and subsequent reporting for duty. premature/delayed transfer of Government servants is permitted in the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) with the prior approval of the Chief Minister. The Transfer Policy has been issued in order to control the wide powers of the State in transferring an employee on the one hand, and in giving a sense of security to the employee on the other hand.

The petitioners, Group 'A' officers in the Commercial Taxes Department, were transferred prematurely. They challenged the transfer orders before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their applications on 20.10.2023 (and 31.10.2023 for one). Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court clubbed the petitions and heard arguments. The matter was reserved for orders on 14.12.2023 and pronounced on 22.01.2024.

• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227