Karnataka High Court
WP/16507/2026 of SMT. AMBIKA, Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 5 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:26827-DB WP No. 16507 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 16507 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. AMBIKA, W/O. RAGHAVENDRA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 16507 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. AMBIKA,
W/O. RAGHAVENDRA H.R.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
OFFICE OF THE NADAKACHERI,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT COMPOUND
OPPOSITE ZILLA PANCHAYAT ADALITHA BHAVAN, BANASHANKARI, S. KARIYAPPA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 070.
RESIDING AT NO. 72/B,
BANASHANKARI NILAYA
OPPOSITE BBMP OFFICE,
JARAGANAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR,
6TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M. K., ADV.)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DIVISION,
EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO NODAL OFFICER
(FINANCE OFFENCES),
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
4.
THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
5.
SMT. PAAVANA M.N.,
FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR
WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR,
AUDIT SECTION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED
IN
APPLICATION
NO.2670/2026
BY
THE
KARNATAKA
STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH (ANNEXURE-A)
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner, a Deputy Tahsildar in Revenue Department is before this Court, questioning the order dated 01.06.2026 passed in Application No.2670/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s prayer for stay of transfer O.M. dated 27.05.2026, transferring her to the post of Audit Sheristedar at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for petitioner and Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted to the present post on 27.10.2022. Under impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the petitioner is transferred from Uttarahalli Hobli,
HC-KAR
Bangalore South Taluk to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District even before she completes her tenure of 4 years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed 3 years 7 months and has a tenure till October 2026. As such, he submits that the transfer of the petitioner is premature. Further, learned counsel would submit that in terms of Transfer Guidelines, transfer within the Head Quarters would also amount to a transfer and in identical fact situations, the Tribunal had granted interim prayer. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal refused to stay the order of transfer. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition and to grant interim prayer as prayed before the Tribunal. Further learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the time the Tribunal considers the petitioner’s application and passes order, the petitioner would complete her tenure, as such, the application before the Tribunal would become unnecessary.
HC-KAR
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Tribunal refusing to stay the transfer of the petitioner.
5. No doubt, posting within the Head Quarters from one office to another office is considered as a transfer as per the Transfer Guidelines. But, that itself would not give a right to the petitioner to enforce her right, unless she demonstrates as to how she is aggrieved or how it affects her service conditions. When the petitioner is posted from one office to another office within Bangalore, no hardship would be caused to the petitioner.
6. The contention that in identical fact situations, the Tribunal has granted interim order is noted only for the purpose of rejecting the same as precedents do not apply in the matter of grant of interim prayer, which would depend on the facts of each case.
HC-KAR
7. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
It is open for the petitioner to seek early disposal of the application before the Tribunal. If such prayer is made, we are sure that the Tribunal would consider the same and take up the application for disposal, as expeditiously as possible.
SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7