Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar questioning the endorsement issued to him by which he was transferred from Vigilance Department of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to the post of Depot Manager.

The bench said “It is no doubt, administrative exigency can be a reason for the Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee, from one place to another, as transfer is an incidence of service, it cannot be that, such transfers would be in violation of the statute, or operative guidelines. Such violation is sans countenance and the subject violation undoubtedly is unsustainable.”

By an earlier order the court had directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the corporation which came to be dismissed by the impugned endorsement.

The bench referred to Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1982, statutory regulations pertaining to appointment to the post of Depot Manager. It said “A Depot Manager can be posted by way of transfer from the cadre of Class-I Junior Officer of Traffic or Mechanical Department.”

Therefore, it held, “If an action is to be taken in terms of the statute, it shall be taken in the manner that is prescribed under the statute, and in no other manner is by now a too well settled principle of law.”

Court added “The petitioner has spent his entire service in the Vigilance Department, and is in the last leg of service, as he is said to be left with 24 months of service. Therefore, it is not that the petition deserves to succeed on the score that the petitioner is left with 2 years of service, but on a plain interpretation of who should be posted to the cadre of Depot Manager, as obtained in the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the endorsement and said petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits.

Appearance: Advocate Ravi Hegde for Petitioner.

Advocate Prashant S Hosmani for R1 and R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

Case Title: Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105244 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order