High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Appeal in Service Transfer Matter — Transfer Order Set Aside Due to Non-Compliance with Transfer Policy. Court Held That Transfer of Environmental Officer Without Following the Policy of Tenure and Without Considering Objections Was Unsustainable.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:57:27

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri K. S. Sudhakara, was working as an Environmental Officer with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). He was transferred by an order dated 25.07.2024, which was challenged by the third respondent (Sri H. R. Puttaraju) in Writ Petition No.19154/2024. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the transfer order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this intra-court appeal. The appellant contended that his transfer was in accordance with the transfer policy and that he had completed his tenure. However, the court found that the transfer policy prescribed a minimum tenure of three years, and the appellant had not completed that tenure. Additionally, the transfer order did not mention any administrative exigency or public interest necessitating the transfer. The court also noted that the appellant's objections were not considered before passing the transfer order. The Division Bench held that the transfer was not in compliance with the policy and was therefore unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the third respondent was dismissed. The court directed that the appellant be allowed to continue in his post.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Transfer - Transfer Policy - Tenure Posting - The appellant, an Environmental Officer, was transferred from his post without completing his tenure and without following the transfer policy. The court held that transfers must be in accordance with the policy and in public interest, and that the transfer order was unsustainable as it did not comply with the policy and was not based on administrative exigency. (Paras 1-10)

B) Service Law - Transfer - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The appellant was not given an opportunity to object to the transfer before the order was passed. The court held that while transfer is an incident of service, it must be exercised fairly and in accordance with the policy, and that the failure to consider objections vitiated the order. (Paras 5-8)

C) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial Review - The court reiterated that transfer orders are subject to judicial review if they are mala fide, in violation of statutory rules, or passed without following the prescribed policy. The impugned transfer was set aside as it did not meet these standards. (Paras 9-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the transfer of the appellant from the post of Environmental Officer was valid when it was made without following the transfer policy and without considering the appellant's objections.

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19154/2024 is set aside. Consequently, Writ Petition No.19154/2024 stands dismissed. The appellant shall be allowed to continue in his post as Environmental Officer.

Law Points

Transfer policy
tenure posting
public interest
administrative exigency
compliance with policy

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB

WA No. 1146 of 2024 (S-TR)

2024-09-03

N. V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, K. V. Aravind, J.

NC: 2024:KHC:35783-DB

Sri Prithveesh M. K. for appellant; Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, AGA for R1; Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary a/w Ms. Rashi Singh for R2; Sri D.R. Ravishankar, Senior Advocate for Smt. Siri R. for R3

Sri K. S. Sudhakara

The State of Karnataka, The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Sri H. R. Puttaraju

Nature of Litigation

Intra-court appeal against order of learned Single Judge in writ petition challenging transfer of Environmental Officer.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19154/2024 and dismissal of the said writ petition.

Filing Reason

Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge which set aside his transfer order.

Previous Decisions

Learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No.19154/2024 filed by the third respondent and set aside the transfer order of the appellant.

Issues

Whether the transfer of the appellant was in compliance with the transfer policy? Whether the transfer order was passed in public interest and based on administrative exigency? Whether the appellant was given an opportunity to object before the transfer?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that his transfer was in accordance with the transfer policy and that he had completed his tenure. Respondents contended that the transfer was in public interest and that the appellant had no right to a particular posting.

Ratio Decidendi

Transfers must be in accordance with the transfer policy and in public interest. A transfer order that does not comply with the policy and is not based on administrative exigency is unsustainable. Failure to consider objections before passing the transfer order also vitiates the order.

Judgment Excerpts

This intra-court appeal by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.19154 of 2024 is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2024. The transfer order does not indicate any administrative exigency or public interest necessitating the transfer. The appellant was not given an opportunity to object to the transfer before the order was passed.

Procedural History

The appellant was transferred by order dated 25.07.2024. The third respondent challenged the transfer in Writ Petition No.19154/2024 before the learned Single Judge, who allowed the petition and set aside the transfer order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.