Administrative Exigency For Transfer Of Employee Can’t Be Violative Of Statute Or Guidelines: Karnataka HC Quashes Transport Corporation’s Order
The Petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court calling in question a transfer order issued by the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation.

The Karnataka High Court allowed a petition challenging a transfer order issued by the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) and held that administrative exigency can be a reason for the Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee but such transfer can’t be in violation of statute or operative guidelines.
The petitioner approached the High Court calling in question an order issued by the Corporation whereby the petitioner was transferred from the Vigilance Department of the NWKRTC to the post of Depot Manager.
The Single Bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna affirmed, “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 obtaining in the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations.”
Advocate Ravi Hegde represented the Petitioner while Advocate Prashant S. Hosamani represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
It was the case of the petitioner that he is not averse to working at any different place, but in the same department as he has spent his lifetime of service in the Vigilance Department and he was now put into the post of Depot Manager. The Coordinate Bench had earlier rejected the contention of the respondent- Corporation that the shortage of Depot Manager was the only ground on which the Corporation posted the petitioner to the post Depot Manager.
The Coordinate Bench directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent-Corporation, to consider the grounds of his apprehension. The matter was thus remitted for a fresh consideration which led to the passing of the impugned transfer order.
Reasoning
Reference was made by the Bench to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1982, insofar as the appointment to the post of Depot Manager was concerned. The Bench found that the officers who can be posted under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the post of Deputy Manager would be only from the category of Class-I Junior Officers of Traffic or Mechanical Department.
“It is trite that those regulations are statutory. The exercise of power of transfer is in terms of Section 17(1) of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. Therefore, the acts are statutory. 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”, it said. It was further noted that the petitioner has spent his entire service in the Vigilance Department and is left with 2 years of service.
The Court emphasized, “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. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed.”
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the impugned order. “The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the order”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Sri Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar v. The Chief Personnel Manager, NWKRTC & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:294)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Ravi Hegde
Respondents: Advocate Prashant S. Hosamani