WP/30314/2026 of DR. KIRAN S Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 6 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel Prof. Sri Ravi Varma Kumar on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 – State.

2. The writ petition arises out of an interim order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3778/2026 dated 20.08.2026. The petitioner who was the applicant before the Tribunal sought for an interim order of stay of the order impugned therein and the Tribunal has passed an order rejecting the prayer for stay. That is being questioned before this Court.

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although it is true that two memos were filed at the hands of the learned Government Advocate before the Tribunal furnishing information that the Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved the transfer and that the Election Commission of India has also given its approval for transfer of the petitioner, nevertheless, learned counsel submits that the transfer guidelines, more particularly, the new transfer guidelines which were issued by the Government in Government

Order

bearing No.¹D¸ÀÄE4¸Éã˪À 2026, Bengaluru dated 13.04.2026 mandate in terms of Clause 9 of the guidelines that before seeking the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the department has to place information in writing assigning the grounds or reasons for transfer, in matters of premature transfer. It is further contended that, Clause 9 also requires that post approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister cannot be taken.

HC-KAR

4. Prof. Sri Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for stay, the Tribunal has rightly considered the information placed by the Government Advocate before the Tribunal. The further question as to whether the approval granted by the Chief Minister and the Election Commission of India is in accordance with law or not are matters which are to be decided by going into the merits of the matter and not at this stage when the prayer for stay was considered by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, learned Senior counsel submits that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.V G Bhanu Prakash appearing for respondent No.1 – State also supports the submission made by the learned Senior counsel.

HC-KAR

6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2. At this stage, when a prayer for stay is considered by the Tribunal, and prima facie material is placed by the respondents before the Tribunal, which is sufficient for the Tribunal to consider the interim prayer, at that stage, it is not required to go deeply into the merits of the matter. It should also be mentioned that having perused the memo filed by the Government Advocate and the material placed before the Tribunal, we find that approval of the Chief Minister has been granted and approval of the Election Commission of India is also granted for the purpose of transfer of the petitioner. The further question as to whether the approval granted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister is in compliance with the provisions

HC-KAR

of the guidelines are matters which are required to be considered by the Tribunal after securing all relevant information and hearing the parties on merits. At this stage, when the prayer for stay was considered by the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, since prima facie material has been placed by the respondents before the Tribunal.

7. Learned Senior counsel Prof.Sri Ravi Varma Kumar has further stated that the matter has been listed before the Tribunal for Final Hearing. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the writ petition while reserving liberty to the parties to address all their arguments before the Tribunal on the merits of the matter. Any observation made during the course of this order shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties before the Tribunal.

HC-KAR

9. Having regard to the sensitivity of the matter, we expect the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to consider and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42