Karnataka High Court dismissed Tahsildar’s plea, holding that transfer based on MLA’s recommendation does not automatically vitiate the transfer order when backed by administrative approval and legal procedure.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a Tahsildar, Grade-I, Bangarpet, who had alleged that his transfer was arbitrary and politically motivated. The case, S. Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors., was decided on 22 August 2025 by a Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, S. Venkateshappa, was posted as Tahsildar in Bangarpet, Kolar District, in July 2024. A few months later, following differences with the local MLA during a Bagar Hukum Committee meeting, tensions escalated. On 13 December 2024, the MLA wrote to the Revenue Minister alleging that several complaints had been received against the petitioner, and specifically recommended his transfer.
Subsequently, the Revenue Department issued an order on 31 December 2024, transferring the petitioner and posting another officer in his place.
The petitioner first approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), but his application was dismissed. Aggrieved, he moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The transfer was premature, as Group-A officers are guaranteed a minimum tenure of two years.
- The transfer was not in the public interest but was made solely at the behest of the MLA.
- No enquiry or pending proceedings justified the action.
- The transfer amounted to “malice in law.” Reliance was placed on Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam (2003) and State of Mysore v. P.R. Kulkarni (1973).
State’s Response:
- The MLA’s letter was based on public complaints regarding the petitioner’s functioning.
- The transfer had received the Chief Minister’s approval, as required under Clause 5(3) of the Government Order on Transfers (25 June 2024).
- Transfer is an incident of service, and no officer has a vested right to remain in a particular post. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2007).
High Court’s Observations
- Transfer is an incident of service: The Bench reiterated that transfer is not a punishment but part of administrative discretion (B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986).
- Statutory Guidelines: Under Clause 5(3) & 5(4) of the Transfer Guidelines, premature transfers are permissible in exceptional cases with the Chief Minister’s approval. In this case, such approval was duly obtained.
- MLA recommendations not per se invalid: Citing Mohd. Masood Ahmad the Court held that a transfer based on an MLA’s recommendation does not automatically render it illegal. The representative of the people has a right to highlight public grievances.
- No mala fides proved: The petitioner failed to establish mala fides, procedural violations, or lack of competence in the transfer order.
The Court concluded:
“When the people express their grievances before their representative, it is the duty of the representative to request for transfer of such government servant. The State Government, certainly within its jurisdiction, could transfer such a government servant.”
Also Read: BREAKING | Governor Does Not Represent The Union of India. He Represents The President: Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Karnataka High Court upheld the petitioner’s transfer, dismissing the writ petition and affirming the KSAT’s order. The ruling underscores that ‘government servants in transferable posts cannot claim a right to remain in a specific office’.
Administrative discretion in transfers remains wide, subject only to mala fides or violation of statutory rules. MLA recommendations, if backed by complaints and proper approval, do not vitiate transfers.
Case Title:
S. Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO.3612/2025 (S-KSAT)
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Transfers of Justices
