Karnataka HC Keeps Rule 32 Engineer In Sports Post For Now If He Has Reported, While State Reviews Cadre Eligibility

The petitioner, a substantive Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), had been deputed to the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports (YES) and was working there as an Assistant Executive Engineer.

By notification dated 15 July 2026, the State handed over respondent No. 4’s services to YES for posting as an Assistant Executive Engineer.

The petitioner challenged that notification before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application.

The petitioner then approached the High Court.

A subsequent notification dated 10 September 2026 withdrew the petitioner’s services from YES and posted him to the PWD at Ballari.

The Court considered Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and the YES Department’s Cadre and Recruitment Rules notified on 27 June 2024.

Those Rules provide for appointment to the Assistant Executive Engineer post by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer of Youth Services, and, if no suitable official is available for promotion, by deputation of an official in an equivalent cadre from the PWD.

Applying the 2026–2027 transfer guidelines, the Court observed that tenure is not measured with mathematical precision and that nearly two years of service did not make the petitioner’s withdrawal premature.

It also held that Chief Minister’s approval was not necessary because the withdrawal and respondent No. 4’s placement occurred during the general transfer period.

The petitioner had served in YES for nearly two years when the impugned notification was issued, so the Court rejected the claim that his withdrawal was premature under the applicable transfer guidelines.

Because the actions occurred during the general transfer period, the asserted need for Chief Minister’s approval also did not invalidate them.

However, the YES Rules require a deputed official to be from an “equivalent cadre.”

The Court left it to the State to determine whether an Assistant Executive Engineer appointed under Rule 32 meets that requirement; it did not decide the equivalence question itself.

It directed the first respondent to examine, within one month, whether a Rule 32 Assistant Executive Engineer is in an “equivalent cadre” for deputation to the YES Department.

Until that examination is completed, respondent No. 4 is not to be disturbed if he has already reported for duty there.

The writ petition was disposed of with those directions.