CM’s office should not directly entertain requests for posting and transfer: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru

The Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) should not entertain requests for transfer and postings directly and the Chief Minister should not interfere with the transfers of the employees working within the government and its public sector undertakings, said the High Court of Karnataka.

“The highest authority of the State [CM] has better and more important work to perform than interfering with the transfers and postings of the employees of the State Government and its undertakings,” the Court observed.

A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf made these observations while disposing of an appeal, filed by Chethan S., an assistant engineer working with Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.,(BESCOM). He had challenged the single judge’s September 9, 2024, order of dismissing his petition, in which he had challenged BESCOM’s action of not posting him to a particular sub-division despite the approval given by the CM on June 24 to his request for such a posting.

“We are of the considered view that the transfers and postings of the employees should be left to the concerned administrative departments and the highest authority of the State should not devote his time in such matters nor should interfere with the transfers and postings of the employees working within the government and the government undertakings,” the Bench observed while noticing the transfer guidelines, which specifies obtaining of CM’s approvals in cases of premature and delayed transfers through the official channel.

“We are the opinion that no request for transfer and posting should be entertained by the CMO directly. The matter should end at the level of the department itself,” the Bench observed.

Chief Secretary’s affidavit

Meanwhile, the Bench noted an affidavit filed by State’s Chief Secretary, Shalini Rajneesh, on March 3, 2026, in which she has categorically stated that “the notes received from the CMO are only recommendatory in nature and not transfer orders or approval for transfers.”

“It is for the concerned department to scrutinise such recommendations based on the respective Cadre and Recruitment Rules and General Transfer Guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR),” the Chief Secretary had clarified in her affidavit.

Single judge’s remarks

The Bench made these observations in addition to the remarks made by the single judge, who had noted that the High Court has come across several letters/orders/approvals issued by the CMO either transferring group ‘B’ or ‘C’ employees, thereby undoing the orders of transfers issued by the transferring authority of the concerned departments.

“...this generates a doubt as to whether the CM is aware of the kind of orders/approvals obtained from his office. It also gives raise to a suspicion that someone sitting in the office of the CM is mechanically issuing such orders/approvals giving rise to heart burn amongst employees and consequent litigation before this Court,” the single judge had observed.

Sensitised

Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary has stated in the affidavit filed before the Bench that the single judge’s remarks were brought to the notice of the CM as was ordered by the single judge, and the office staff/officers in the CMO associated with handling of such transfer requests have been specifically sensitised regarding concerns expressed by the judge.