SHRI. MOHAN KUMAR S.M vs THE DIRECTOR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.106903 OF 2026 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MOHAN KUMAR S.M
S/O. MALLESHAPPA S.C,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE),
O AND M RURAL DIVISION,
DIVISION OFFICE, GESCOM,
BALLARI-583201,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., (KPTCL), (ADMN. AND HR) CORPORATE
OFFICE, INDHANA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBURG ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.,
(GESCOM), CORPORATE OFFICE: STATION ROAD,
KALABURGI-585102,
TQ/DIST. KALABURGI.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
O AND M CIRCLE, GESCOM,
BALLARI-583201,
TQ/DIST. BALLARI.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
O AN M CIRCLE, RURAL DIVISION, GESCOM,
BALLARI-583201,
TQ/DIST.BALLARI.
- 2 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
5. KUMARI. DIVYA S.,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE),
NO.66/11KV, SUB-STATION, KPTCL,
PUNABAGHATTA-583125,
TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. BALLARI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. MRUTRYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I.
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM / TRANSFER ORDER DATED 11.08.2026
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
NO.GESCOM/PRAVYA/ULENI(AA)/LEA(AA)/SALEAA(AA)(HISA-
4(AA)/2026-27/CYS-476 AS PER ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE TRANSFER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO
THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. II. ISSUE ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 3 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
CAV ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
i. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Order or
Direction, quashing the impugned official
memorandum/ transfer order dated
11.08.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 in
No.GESCOM/PraVya/Uleni(Aa)/
Lea(Aa)/Saleaa(Aa) (Hisa-4(Aa)/2026-27/CYS-
476 as per Annexure-F in so far as it relates to
the transfer of the respondent No.5 to the
place of the petitioner is concerned.
ii. Issue any other appropriate Writ or Order or
Direction which deems fit to grant by this
Hon’ble Court under the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Facts germane to file the present petition are as
under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, he is working as
Junior Engineer (Group-C). He was transferred from
his earlier posting/place to the present posting/place
i.e., to the office of Technical Section (Sandur Sub-
Division) Rural Division, GESCOM, Ballari, on
11.07.2023.
- 4 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
2.2 On 12.07.2023, the petitioner joined his duties at the
present place.
2.3 As the matter stood thus, in the year 2026-27, i.e.,
on 13.04.2026, the Government has issued Transfer
Guidelines pertaining to the transfers of the
employees for the year 2026-27, which are being
followed and adopted by the respondent authorities.
2.4 The petitioner is a Group-C employee and as per the
guidelines supra, the minimum tenure of service in
any particular place prescribed is four years.
2.5 On 30.06.2026, the second respondent issued Official
Memorandum, according permission for change of
place of working in respect of employees mentioned
in the said Official Memorandum, from the respective
places where they are working to the respective
places as mentioned against their name, subject to
the conditions and guidelines i.e., Condition No.7 in
the guideline that, the permission accorded for the
said change is restricted only in respect of vacant
- 5 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
places and it is not conferring any right on the
employees stated therein.
2.6 The name of the fifth respondent finds place at
Sl.No.168, wherein it is stated that she has
requested for change of place from the place where
she is working to the office of the (O & M) Rural sub-
Division, GESCOM, Ballari.
2.7 As per the petitioner, the permission accorded is
subject to Condition No.7 which states that it is
accorded only in respect of vacant places and not
otherwise.
2.8 Thereafter, under the impugned order dated
11.08.2026, in furtherance of the Official
Memorandum dated 30.06.2026, the fifth respondent
is transferred to the place of the petitioner (present
posting), however without showing any place of
posting to the petitioner.
2.9 The transfer is affected in the middle of the academic
year. The daughters of the petitioner are School
going children, studying VIII Standard and IV
- 6 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
Standard respectively, at WISDOMLAND School, Opp.
Rajayoga Ashrama, Sanganakal Road, Bellary and
the transfer indeed made prior to completion of
tenure in terms of the transfer guidelines and without
approval of the Chief Minister and even against the
condition contemplated under the Official
Memorandum dated 30.06.2026 is not sustainable in
law and invalid. Calling in question the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard, Sri.A.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Vijaykumar
Balagerimath, learned counsel appearing for respondents
2 to 4 and Sri.Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.5.
4. This Court at the first instance, while issuing
notice, on 13.08.2026, passed the following order:
“ ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
- 7 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to serve the copy of the petition to the
standing counsel counsel for the respondent No.1
to 4. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.5.
3. The petitioner has questioned the
transfer order dated 11.08.2026. The submission
is, there is no posting given to the petitioner and
the transfer order is effected before completion of
4 years which is the tenure fixed in terms of the
transfer guidelines applicable to Group-C
employees.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a
Group-C employee. After considering the materials
on record, prima facie it appears that the
petitioner is transferred before completion of 4
years' of his tenure and without giving any
posting.
5. Under these circumstances the operation
of the impugned order is stayed till next date of
hearing, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
6. Hand delivery is ordered.”
5. On 01.09.2026, the fifth respondent filed an
application seeking to vacate the interim order granted by
this Court on 13.08.2026 and also filed statement of
objections to the Writ Petition.
- 8 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
6. The fifth respondent in the statement of
objection contended that the petitioner suppressed
material facts before this Court and on the strength of the
same, obtained interim order. She denied the contention
of the petitioner that he was transferred without showing
place of posting, as false.
6.1 The fifth respondent produced Annexure-R2 to
contend that on the very same day, i.e., on
11.08.2026, the General Manager, Administration
and Human Resource Development, GESCOM,
Kalaburagi issued order transferring the petitioner to
the place of fifth respondent i.e., 66/11KV sub-
station, KPTCL, Punabhagatta. However, the
petitioner has suppressed this aspect of the matter.
6.2 It is further contended that the petitioner was
transferred on 03.02.2020 to the office of the (O &
M) Rural Division, GESCOM as Junior Engineer in the
post of Technical Section (Transformer Repair), Rural
Division, Ballari. On 11.07.2023, he was moved in
the same office to the post of Technical Section,
- 9 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
(Sandur Sub-Division), Rural Division, GESCOM,
Ballari. The fifth respondent contended that, since
the division is same, minimum tenure of four years
has been completed, as such on both these counts,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.3 It is also contended that since the transfer is within
the same division i.e., from one office to another
office, it cannot be termed as transfer within the
guidelines and the approval of the Chief Minister is
not at all necessary. As such, the Writ Petition itself
is not maintainable.
6.4 It is contended by the fifth respondent that, she was
suffering from Multiple Uterine Fibroids and had
undergone surgery on 07.06.2026 and she has to
undergo successive treatments, as such she is
required to be in City, such as Ballari, where she can
take treatment. Hence the permission accorded for
transfer of fifth respondent to the post of petitioner is
just and reasonable and in accordance with the
- 10 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
Transfer Guidelines. In that view of the matter,
sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. In reply, the petitioner filed rejoinder, denying
the contentions raised by the fifth respondent that he has
suppressed the material facts while obtaining interim
order.
7.1 So far as the Official Memorandum dated 11.08.2026
showing the petitioner his place of posting i.e., to the
place of the fifth respondent at Punabhagatta is
concerned, it is the specific case of the petitioner
that, a perusal of the Official Memorandum clearly
shows that no copy is marked or served on him. It is
also contended that the said order is not served on
him till date i.e., as of the date of filing the rejoinder.
As such, the said order itself is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances.
7.2 The petitioner contended that if he had been shown
posting to the place of the fifth respondent, the same
should have been reflected in the order transferring
- 11 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
the fifth respondent vide Official Memorandum dated
11.08.2026, which is impugned in the Writ Petition.
7.3 So far as the allegation of transferring him in the
same division is concerned, the petitioner contends
that transfer from one office to another office
amounts transfer, within the Transfer Guidelines
supra and if any transfer is effected before the
tenure is completed, in the absence of approval by
the Chief Minister, it is against the transfer guidelines
and the same is one without authority of law and
invalid. With this, petitioner sought to allow the Writ
Petition.
8. Sri.A.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.K.S.SUDHAKARA
1
VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , wherein the
Division Bench, following the two Full Bench Judgments of
this Court has held that, transfer from one office to
1
W.A.No.1146/2024, disposed of on 03.09.2024
- 12 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
another amounts to transfer, though within the Head
Quarters.
9. Sri.Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent relied on the Judgment
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
MR.PRASANNA KUMAR.A VS. KARNATAKA URBAN
WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD AND
2
ANOTHER , to contend that transfer in the same office
i.e., from one unit to another unit is not transfer, but it is
ZÀ®£À - ªÀ®£À
a deployment/ ( ) and the Transfer Guidelines
are not applicable to the same.
9.1 Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was
earlier transferred on 03.02.2020 to the office of (O
& M) Rural Division, GESCOM, Ballari and was
working as Junior Engineer in the post of Technical
Section (Transformer Repair) and moved in the same
office to the post of Technical Section (Sandur sub-
Division), which also comes within the Rural Division,
GESCOM, Ballari, which is not a transfer but just
2
W.P.No.16419/2022, disposed of on 14.10.2022
- 13 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
deployment and as such, he has completed the
tenure of four years of service in the Rural Division,
GESCOM, Ballari and sought to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, the
only question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the Official Memorandum
dated 11.08.2026 should be termed as a
Transfer Order, in so far as the
petitioner is concerned?”
11. The answer is obviously in the Affirmative , for
the following:
REASON
12. Even in the Judgment referred by the fifth
respondent, the Coordinate Bench of this Court referred to
Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
S.N.GANGADHARAIAH K.A.S VS. THE STATE OF
3
KARNATAKA . The question of transfer from one office to
another office in the same division, fell for consideration
3
ILR 2015 KAR 1955
- 14 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
before the Full Bench in S.N.GANGADHARAIAH supra,
wherein the Full Bench after considering the definition of
transfer as in Karnataka Civil Service Rules and
Government Order dated 07.06.2013, at Paragraph
No.20(c) has held as under:
“20 a) ………
b) ………
c) Consequently, we hold that posting of a
Government servant from one office to another
within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a
new post would tantamount to transfer within the
meaning of Clause 3(d) of the Government order
dated 07.06.2013.”
13. The Full Bench in the authoritative
pronouncement of law, has held that posting within the
office is not a transfer, but one office to another office
means a transfer.
14. In the case on hand, on 03.02.2020, the
petitioner was transferred to the office of (O & M) Rural
Division, GESCOM, Ballari, as Junior Engineer in the post
of Technical Section (Transformer Repair). However, on
11.07.2023, he was transferred from that office to the
- 15 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
post of Technical Section (Sandur Sub-Division), Rural
Division, GESCOM, Ballari. The photocopy of the order
dated 11.07.2023, is extracted hereunder:
- 16 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
15. A perusal of the same, clearly shows that,
though the transfer is mutual, the petitioner is transferred
from one office to another office.
16. The Judgment relied on by the petitioner
followed the Judgment of two Full Bench to hold that, the
transfer guidelines are having statutory force and transfer
though in same headquarters, but one office to another
office amounts to transfer.
17. So far as the contention of the fifth respondent
referring to Annexure-R2 that, the petitioner has
suppressed material facts i.e., he has been shown the
place of posting is concerned, the same cannot be
countenanced for the simple reason that the copy of the
same is not marked to the petitioner.
18. The photocopy of the order at Annexure-R2 is
extracted hereunder, for easy reference.
- 17 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
- 18 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
19. On the said document, in the rejoinder the
petitioner has taken a specific contention at Paragraph
No.10, which reads as under:
“10. The contentions of the respondent
No.5 in Paragraph No.7 of the statement of
objections to the effect that though the petitioner
has been given posting vide official memorandum
letter dated 11.08.2026 he has suppressed the
said fact is specifically denied by the petitioner,
since as could be evidenced from the copy of the
official memorandum dated 11.08.2026 produced
as per Annexure-R2 by the respondent No.5, the
copy of the same has been neither marked or
served upon the petitioner even till today. Further,
it is stated that if at all the respondents No.1 and
2 had given the posting to the petitioner to the
place of the respondent No.5 as mentioned in
Annexure-R2, there was no impediment for the
said respondents No.1 and 2 to mention in the
impugned order dated 11.08.2026 as per
Annexure-F or to make a copy of the official
memorandum dated 11.08.2026 as produced by
the respondent No.5 as per Annexure-R2. Thus,
the said fact results in having reasonable suspicion
that whether the said document i.e., Annexure-R2
has been issued on the same date or on the
subsequently by putting antedate.“
20. Despite the specific contention taken in the
rejoinder, the respondent authorities neither filed
- 19 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
statement of objections nor furnished any documents to
show that the copy of the order at Annexure-R2, showing
petitioner’s place of posting to the place of fifth
respondent was served on him. In that view of the matter,
this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner that, the copy of the said order has not
been served on the petitioner. In view thereof, the
contention of the fifth respondent that there is suppression
of material facts by the petitioner cannot be
countenanced.
21. This Court, considering the case of the fifth
respondent that she has underwent major surgery and
requires successive treatment, on 23.09.2026, at the
request of Sri.Vijayakumar Balagerimath, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 to 4, listed the matter on
28.09.2026 and directed him to come up with positive
submission on placing/ accommodating the fifth
respondent within Ballari City.
22. In compliance of the order dated 23.09.2026,
Mr.Balagerimath, filed a memo along with details of 23
- 20 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
posts available in Ballari City and on instruction submitted
that no posts are vacant and also submitted that if
vacancies arises out of said 23 posts, on the ground of
promotion or otherwise, the fifth respondent shall be
accommodated.
23. This Court, not being satisfied with the
submission of Mr.Balagerimath, once again directed him to
come up with positive direction in terms of the order dated
23.09.2026 for accommodating the fifth respondent and
the petitioner as well, in and around within 10 Kilometers
radius of Ballari City, by the next date of hearing.
24. The matter was listed on 01.10.2026. On that
day, Mr.Balagerimath, submitted that no posts are vacant
as of now and immediately if any post becomes vacant, in
future, the fifth respondent shall be accommodated in the
said post.
25. On the said submission, this Court directed both
the parties to file their synopsis and heard them on merits
on 06.10.2026 and reserved the matter for orders.
- 21 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
26. As stated afore, the official Memorandum/
transfer order passed by the respondent Authorities on
11.08.2026 falls short to the Transfer Guidelines at
Annexure-C dated 13.04.2026. The petitioner being a
Group-C employee, as per the guidelines supra, has got
four years minimum tenure in the present place of posting.
27. The impugned order, on three grounds required
to be held as invalid, viz:
(I) Transfer Order passed is pre-mature.
(II) The order is passed without showing
the place of posting to the petitioner.
(III) If the transfer is pre-mature, as per the
guidelines the same must contain
reasons and approval of the Chief
Minister.
28. All the three conditions supra are lacking in the
order impugned in this Writ Petition. In that view of the
matter, the Writ Petition succeeds and accordingly, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .
- 22 -
WP No. 106903 of 2026
(ii) The Official Memorandum/ Transfer Order
dated 11.08.2026 vide Annexure-F is set-
aside.
(iii) Respondents 2 to 4 shall continue the
petitioner in the same place of posting till he
completes his tenure.
(iv) This Court having considered the medical
complications of the fifth respondent, directs
respondents 2 to 4 to sanction her medical
leave for a period of three months from
today, (or) to take any action to depute the
fifth respondent in any lighter table work
in any of the office, within Ballari City (10
Kms radius), considering her medical
condition.
(v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN