01Facts
The petitioner, a Gazetted Manager-II in the Sericulture Department, was posted to the Directorate of Sericulture in Bengaluru on 1 September 2022.
pp. 4–5By transfer notification dated 2 June 2025, he was transferred to Vijayapura, Devanahalli Taluk, and respondent No. 5 was posted to Bengaluru.
pp. 4–5The petitioner challenged the transfer before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, contending that it lacked the approval required by the transfer guidelines dated 12 May 2025.
pp. 5–6The Tribunal dismissed his application on 26 March 2026.
pp. 5–6The petitioner then sought relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.
p. 7While the writ petition was pending, an interim stay of the transfer was granted, following which he returned to duty in Bengaluru.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the transfer notification was invalid for want of approval by the Chief Minister or the concerned Minister under the applicable transfer guidelines.
pp. 6–8ii.2. Whether the petitioner had a right to remain in Bengaluru after completing the minimum tenure in his post there.
pp. 8–903Law Applied
The Court applied the principles that transfer is an incident of service and that a government servant has no right to remain in a particular post, particularly after completing the applicable tenure.
pp. 8–9Tenure is subject to the conditions in the transfer guidelines and administrative exigencies.
p. 9Under the guidelines dated 12 May 2025, as applied by the Court, a transfer made during the general transfer period did not require the Chief Minister’s approval; the Court also accepted that the concerned Minister had approved the transfer.
pp. 7–9The judgment cites no statute or judicial precedent as the basis for these principles.
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner had completed the minimum tenure at the Bengaluru Directorate by the time the impugned transfer was issued.
p. 9As the transfer occurred during the general transfer period, the Court held that Chief Ministerial approval was unnecessary; it also accepted the State’s submission that the concerned Minister had approved the notification.
pp. 8–9The petitioner therefore had no right to continue in Bengaluru, and the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s decision.
pp. 8–1005Holding
The Court answered the approval and tenure issues against the petitioner, found no merit in the writ petition, and rejected it, leaving the Tribunal’s dismissal of the challenge to the transfer undisturbed.
pp. 8–10Original Court PDF
SRI SANJAY Y JAGATAPvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
