Karnataka HC Leaves Engineer’s Replacement In Place, Citing Nearly Two Years In Post And The General Transfer Period

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was posted to the Quality Control Division in Bengaluru by notification dated 31 July 2024 and reported for duty on 18 October 2024.

By a notification dated 27 May 2026, respondent No. 3 was posted in his place, without a posting being provided to the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged that notification before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). An interim order allowed him to remain in his post until a posting was given; on 16 September 2026, he was posted to a vacant post in Shivamogga.

The KSAT rejected his challenge to the 27 May notification, relying on his near-completion of tenure and the subsequent posting. The petitioner challenged the KSAT’s order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. His separate challenge to the 16 September posting remained pending before the KSAT.

The Court considered the applicable transfer guidelines and the principle that an official’s tenure need not be measured with mathematical precision; near-completion of the prescribed tenure may be relevant when assessing a transfer.

It also accepted that, during the general transfer period, the concerned ministry may effect transfers without approval of the Chief Minister.

The petitioner relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 201273/2021, dated 6 July 2021, for the proposition that tenure is calculated as on the date of transfer; the Court did not separately analyse or adopt that proposition in its reasoning.

The Court’s review was sought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but it found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

Although the petitioner had not completed his tenure when respondent No. 3 was posted on 27 May 2026, he continued in the post under the Tribunal’s interim order until 16 September 2026 and had then completed nearly two years, short by about one month.

The Court held that tenure is not assessed with mathematical precision and found that the transfer occurred during the general transfer period, when the concerned ministry was empowered to effect transfers.

It did not decide the petitioner’s objections to the 16 September posting, including the alleged absence of competent approval and his claimed protection as an employee nearing retirement, because that notification was already under challenge before the KSAT.

It left the petitioner free to pursue his grounds concerning the 16 September 2026 posting in the pending KSAT application and expressed the expectation that the Tribunal would consider them.