Medical Officer’s Karajagi Transfer Stands After She Opted For The Post, Despite Undisplayed Consequential Vacancies: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Department’s failure to display posts that would become vacant during counselling required the petitioner’s transfer order to be set aside.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established grounds to set aside her transfer order or interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and left the Tribunal’s order undisturbed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Group-A Medical Officer, was posted at the Government Homeopathic Hospital, Raibag, in August 2022. In June 2025, she participated in transfer counselling and opted for the Government Homeopathic Dispensary, Karajagi; the resulting order transferred her there. Respondent No. 4 also participated and opted for the Raibag post.

¶ 3, 7–12

The petitioner later contended that the Department had not displayed all posts that would become vacant through counselling, and sought to set aside the transfer order. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed her application, prompting this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 3, 7–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Department’s failure to display posts that would become vacant during counselling required the petitioner’s transfer order to be set aside.

¶ 12, 14

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s voluntary participation in counselling and selection of the Karajagi post precluded interference with her transfer order, notwithstanding the alleged omission.

¶ 15–17

03Law Applied

Rule 4(5) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff) Rules, 2025 requires the Department to display existing clear vacancies and vacancies arising under the relevant sub-rule, including consequential vacancies arising during counselling.

¶ 4–6, 13 · pp. 5–6

Rule 8 requires vacancies to be filled by transfer, including consequential vacancies arising during counselling, to be displayed as they arise. The Court also noted that the applicable transfer rules require Medical Officers to serve in rural areas and that the petitioner had not previously served in a rural area.

¶ 4–6, 13 · pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court considered that there appeared to be merit in the petitioner’s contention that consequential vacancies should have been displayed during counselling.

¶ 14

However, the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the process and selected the Karajagi post, after which the transfer order was issued. Because other officers had also participated and received transfer orders, accepting the petitioner’s challenge would require the counselling exercise to be conducted again. In the circumstances, the Court held that the alleged omission did not justify invalidating the transfer orders.

¶ 15–16