SRI. SANDEEP K vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 31073 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANDEEP K.
S/O NARASIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
AT COMMISSIONERATE OF
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
TH
AAB BUILDING, 5 FLOOR IT PARK,
TH
RAJAJINAGAR, 4 BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560010
REPORTED AND WORKING AT
MEENA KUNTE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. FOR
SRI RAGHUPATHI M. J., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ, M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER/ DESK OFFICER,
(GRAMA PANCHAYAT)
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
S. CARIAPPA ROAD,
BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE - 560064.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560064.
5. SRI VINAY R S/O R RANGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MEENA KUNTE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
WAITING FOR POSTING,
NOW TRANSFERRED TO
THAMMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.
ST
R/AT NO.32, 1 C MAIN ROAD,
NEAR PUSHPANJALI THEATRE,
SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & 2
SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADV. FOR
SRI SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADV. FOR R5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
BEARING NO.RDPR 160 GPK 2026 DATED 07/05/2026
ND
(ANNEXURE-A6) PASSED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT WITH A
ND
DIRECTION TO THE 2 RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
AS THE PDO, MEENUGUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, YALAHANKA AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2026
in Application No.2602/2026 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’), whereunder Application of respondent No.5
herein questioning the O.M., dated 07.05.2026 –
transferring and posting the petitioner in place of fifth
respondent and transferring and posting fifth respondent
as Panchayat Development Officer, Thammanahalli Gram
Panchayat, Shiddlagatta, Taluk, Chikkaballapur District is
allowed.
2. Parties to the proceedings would be referred to
as they stood before the Tribunal. The petitioner was
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 herein was
applicant before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that both the
applicant as well as respondent No.5 are working as
Panchayat Development Officers in the Department of
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. It is stated that the
applicant was posted to work as Panchayat Development
Officer at Meenukunte Grama Panchayat in the year 2021
and he has completed his tenure at the said place of
posting. Respondent No.5 was posted to work as
Panchayat Development Officer, office of the
Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, on
03.08.2025. Under transfer O.M., dated 07.05.2026 the
applicant was transferred from Meenukunte Gram
Panchayat to Thammanahalli Gram Panchayat,
Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. Whereas,
Respondent No.5 who was working at the Office of the
Commissionerate was transferred to the place of the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
applicant as Panchayat Development Officer, Meenukunte
Gram Panchayat, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban
District. Questioning the said transfer and posting, the
applicant was before the Tribunal in the above stated
Application. The Tribunal under the impugned order set
aside the order of transfer holding that the transfer
effected without counseling and without following the
Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of
Senior Panchayath Development Officers, Panchayath
Development Officers, Grama Panchayath Secretary and
Rural Development Assistant (Grade-1 & 2) and (Second
Division Assistants) Rules, 2024 ) for short, ‘Rules, 2024’)
is bad in law and set aside the transfer O.M., insofar as
the applicant and respondent No.5 are concerned.
Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the
transfer O.M., dated 07.05.2026, respondent No.5 before
the Tribunal is before this Court in this writ petition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
4. Heard learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy for
Sri.Raghupathi.M.J., learned counsel for
petitioner/respondent No.5, learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for
Sri.Somashekara.K.M., learned counsel for
applicant/respondent No.5. Perused the entire writ petition
papers.
5. Learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy for
petitioner vehemently contends that the Tribunal is not
justified in coming to the conclusion that the Government
has no power to transfer by referring to the Rules, 2024.
Learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy would submit that
there is no prohibition under Rules, 2024 to effect transfer
by the State Government. Though the State Government
has delegated the power, it retains its original power and it
could effect transfers. Further, he submits that under
Rules, 2024, Government's power to transfer Panchayat
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
Development Officers or Senior Panchayat Development
Officers is not taken away. Learned counsel
Sri.T.Narayanaswamy referring extensively to the Rules,
2024 would submit that the power of the Government is
not taken away to effect transfer and further he submits
that when the Government effects transfer, it has to effect
transfer by following General Transfer Guidelines and it
need not follow the procedure prescribed under Rules,
2024. Therefore, he submits that the conducting of
counseling would not apply to transfers effected by
Government. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ
petition and to set aside the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal and to give effect to the impugned order of
transfer dated 07.05.2026 insofar as the applicant and
respondent No.5 are concerned.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Vikas Rojipura would submit that the transfer has
taken place during the General Transfers and he submits
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
that admittedly the O.M., dated 07.05.2026 effecting
transfers of Panchayat Development Officers is not by
conducting counseling as required under Rules, 2024.
7. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh would
submit that the Tribunal has not given any finding with
regard to the Government's power to transfer. However,
he submits that the Government has set aside the transfer
of applicant and respondent No.5 only on the ground that
the Government ought to have followed the procedure
prescribed under Rules, 2024. Non-following the Rules,
2024 resulted in quashing of the transfer of the applicant
and respondent No.5. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh
would further submit that in terms of Rule 3 of Rules,
2024, transfer of an employee under the Rules shall be
done through a process of counseling conducted in the
manner specified in Rule 7 of Rules, 2024. Therefore, even
if assuming that the State Government has power to effect
transfer, it shall also follow the Rules, 2024. Learned
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
counsel would submit that it cannot be said that while
Government effecting the transfer, it would not follow
Rules, 2024. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record,
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal allowing the Application of
applicant and in quashing the transfer O.M., dated
07.05.2026 insofar as applicant and respondent No.5 are
concerned, on the ground of non-following Rules, 2024.
9. We have gone through the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded its
finding at paragraph 8 and 9, which reads as follows:
“8. The transfers of Panchayat Development
Officers (PDOs) and other local panchayat staff in
Karnataka are governed by the Karnataka State
Civil Services (Regulation of Transfers of Senior
Panchayat Development Officers, Panchayat
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
Development Officers, Grama Panchayat
Secretaries and Rural Development Assistants
(Grade-I and Grade-II) and Second Division
Accounts Assistants] Rules, 2024, wherein it has
been clearly mentioned that the transfers and
postings are handled via a structured online/offline
counseling process overseen by the department and
there is no scope of manual transfer of any
employee working in the Panchayath but Rule 10 of
the above said Rules, 2024 provides exceptional
circumstances where premature transfers can be
effected in a circumstances where there is a prima-
facie findings of misconduct and the employee has
been placed under suspension or a criminal
proceedings is pending or the department intending
to initiate departmental enquiry as prescribed under
Rule 10 of the above said Rules, 2024. In this case,
no such circumstances have arisen to invoke Rule
10 of the Rules, 2024 to transfer the applicant
prematurely. Further, Rule 2 of the said Rules,
2024 provides the definitions under which Rule
2(o)(p) gives the definitions of maximum period
and minimum period, wherein it has been clearly
mentioned that the maximum period is five years
and minimum period is three years. And Rule 7 of
the said Rules, 2024 specifies the procedure for
conducting counseling. In this case, the applicant
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
has not been transferred on any of the grounds as
mentioned in Rule 10 of the above said Rules, 2024
as there is no scope for transfer of the PDO’s on
oral complaints under the above said Rules. Under
the impugned order dated 07.05.2026, it is noticed
that as many as 69 PDO’s and 17 other officials of
the Panchayath have been transferred manually
and hence, the applicant is entitled to continue as
PDO of Meenukunte Grama Panchayath, Yelahanka
Taluk, until his transfer initiated through
computerized counseling as per Rules, 2024.
9. However, from the records it is noticed
that pursuant to the impugned order dated
07.05.2026, the 5th respondent has already been
relieved from his earlier post and assumed charge
in the transferred place and on the other hand, the
Executive Officer has relieved the applicant from his
present post and directed him to hand over the
charge of the post to the 5th respondent forthwith.
Admittedly, the applicant has not handed over the
charge of the post to the 5th respondent and it
appears that the impugned order is partially
implemented. But as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Smt.
Chandrakala S. B. V/s. State of Karnataka &
Others passed in W.P.Nos.29579/2025 (S-KSAT)
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
and cc, and in the case of Sri Rajkumar Mulimuni
V/s. The State of Karnataka & Others passed in
W.P.No.8937/2026 (S-KSAT) dated 27.03.2026,
and also in the case of State of Karnataka &
Others V/s. H.M.Rudresh , the applicant is
entitled to continue as PDO of Meenukunte Grama
Panchayath, Yalahanka Taluk, until the applicant
completes his tenure or his transfer is initiated
through counseling as per Rules. As such, we have
gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court in the case of T. Suneel Kumar, IPS V/s.
State of Karnataka & Others passed in
W.P.No.13995 of 2013 (S-CAT) c/w
W.P.Nos.10988-91 of 2013 (S-CAT), wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has held as follows:
“In fact, because of this understanding
recently when the Government was
indiscriminately passing orders of transfer contrary
to statutory provisions, the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal decided not only to stay
such orders but also directed that the person who
is relieved of his duty should be put back, to send a
message to the Government and to the officials
who have managed to get these transfer orders,
that though the transfer has been given effect to,
charge is taken, it has no value in the eye of law.
Unfortunately, the Central Administrative Tribunal
seems to think that once charge is taken it loses its
power to set aside the said order. Taking of charge
or not taking of charge has no effect whatsoever in
deciding the validity of an order of transfer. Once
the order of transfer is quashed, the parties have
to be relegated to the position as they stood prior
to the order of transfer. Therefore, the reasoning of
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is liable to be
set aside.””
A reading of the above portion of the order of the Tribunal
would not indicate and the Tribunal has not given any
finding on the power of the State Government to effect
transfer or otherwise. The Tribunal has proceeded on the
ground that the Government has power to effect transfer,
however, is of the opinion that the Government shall
follow the procedure prescribed under Rules, 2024 while
effecting transfers.
10. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that there is no prohibition for transfer of
Panchayat Development Officers by the Government or
that the power of the Government to transfer is not taken
away need not be examined in this writ petition and the
same is kept open.
11. However, we are of the same opinion that if the
Government intends to effect transfer apart from the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
Competent Authority prescribed under Rules, 2024, it shall
also follow the same procedure prescribed for transfer by
the Competent Authority in terms of Rules, 2024. The
transfer of the employees under Rules, 2024 including
Panchayat Development Officer Grade-1 and Grade-2 as
well as other Officers mentioned therein shall be by
following the process of counseling and without following
the process of counseling, no transfers shall take place.
12. It is an admitted fact that O.M., dated
07.05.2026 transferring as many as 86 Officers is effected
by the Government without following the process of
counseling as prescribed under Rules, 2024 and the same
is contrary to Rules, 2024. If the competent authority or
Government intends to effect transfer of any officials such
as Panchayat Development Officers Grade-1 and Grade-2
or any other Officers, it could follow the procedure
prescribed under Rules, 2024 and could effect transfers.
That liberty is reserved to the respondent-authorities.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57862-DB
WP No. 31073 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683662026
13. However, the present writ petition deserves to
be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two
weeks. If the cost is not paid within two weeks, the second
respondent is directed to deduct the above stated cost
amount from the salary of the petitioner and remit it to
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, within two
weeks there after.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4