Premature transfers before minimum tenure are invalid absent reasons and Chief Minister’s approval.

The petitioner, a Group-C Junior Engineer, was posted to the Technical Section, Sandur Sub-Division, Rural Division, GESCOM, Ballari, on 11 July 2023.

The 2026–27 transfer guidelines prescribed a minimum four-year tenure for Group-C employees.

On 11 August 2026, respondent No. 5 was transferred to the petitioner’s place; a separate memorandum produced by respondent No. 5 purported to post the petitioner to her former station, but the petitioner said it had not been served on him.

The Court initially stayed the impugned order insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

Respondent No. 5 argued that the petitioner had completed the required tenure because he had been in the same division since 2020, and that his movement within the division was only a deployment.

The Court applied the 2026–27 transfer guidelines, under which a Group-C employee was entitled to a minimum four-year tenure and a premature transfer required reasons and the Chief Minister’s approval.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in S.N. Gangadharaiah K.A.S. v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2015 KAR 1955, it held that posting a government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters, to perform the duties of a new post, amounts to a transfer under clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 7 June 2013.

The Court also referred to Sri K.S. Sudhakara v. State of Karnataka, W.A. No. 1146/2024, for the proposition that movement from one office to another may amount to a transfer even within the same headquarters.

The Court considered, but did not adopt, the respondent’s reliance on Mr. Prasanna Kumar A. v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, W.P. No. 16419/2022.

The Court found that the petitioner’s 2023 movement was from one office to another, rather than merely between posts within the same office.

Applying the Full Bench rule, it treated that movement as a transfer and measured the four-year tenure from 11 July 2023; the August 2026 order was therefore premature.

The Court also rejected the allegation that the petitioner had suppressed his posting to respondent No. 5’s former station: despite the petitioner’s specific denial that the separate memorandum had been served, the authorities produced no evidence of service.

It concluded that the impugned order lacked the required posting particulars and, being premature, did not contain the reasons or Chief Minister’s approval required by the guidelines.

It set aside the official memorandum dated 11 August 2026 and directed that the petitioner remain at his existing place of posting until completion of his tenure.

In view of respondent No. 5’s medical condition, the Court directed respondents 2 to 4 either to sanction her medical leave for three months from the date of judgment or to assign her lighter table work in an office within a 10-kilometre radius of Ballari City.

No order as to costs was made.