General transfer periods do not override minimum-tenure protections against premature transfer.

The petitioner was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer at BESCOM’s W-4 Sub-Division by order dated 28 April 2026 and assumed charge on 30 April 2026.

By an Official Memorandum dated 15 July 2026, he was transferred to W-8 Sub-Division.

He challenged the memorandum, contending that it breached the tenure protection in the applicable transfer guidelines.

Respondent No. 4 argued that the posting was a deployment rather than a transfer and that, as it occurred during the general transfer period, the rules governing premature transfers did not apply.

Whether the petitioner’s posting to another sub-division could be treated as a deployment outside the application of the Transfer Guidelines.

Whether a transfer during the general transfer period was exempt from the guidelines’ tenure protections and requirements for premature transfers.

The Court applied the Karnataka Government’s Transfer Guidelines 2024, issued under Government Order No. DPAR 33 STR 2024 dated 25 June 2024. Read together, Clauses 2, 3 and 6 make the guidelines and minimum-tenure protection applicable to deployment as well as transfer; Clause 7 permits premature or delayed transfers only in the circumstances and through the procedure it provides, as an exception to Clause 6; and Clause 9 confirms that tenure protection is relevant even during general transfers.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in K.S. Sudhakara v. State of Karnataka & Others, W.A. No. 1146 of 2024, which held that the explanation to Clause 2(3) cannot be used to exclude deployment from the substantive transfer provisions and that the minimum-tenure protection applies to deployment.

The Court found that the petitioner had taken charge at W-4 on 30 April 2026 and was moved to W-8 by the impugned order dated 15 July 2026, before completing the protected tenure.

Applying K.S. Sudhakara, it rejected the argument that describing the movement as deployment removed it from the guidelines: the explanation to Clause 2(3) could not override the substantive provisions governing transfer and tenure.

It also rejected the argument that the general transfer period displaced the tenure protection, noting that the guidelines preserve that protection even in the context of general transfers.

The order therefore amounted to a premature transfer.

It directed that the parties be restored to their postings as they stood before the impugned transfer.