Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Mr Venkatesha K K on 9 March, 2026
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB
WA No. 100007 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100007 OF 2026 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SECTION
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT VERTICAL
HUMAN RESOURCE AND PUBLIC RELATION
WING, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR &
SRI. SURESH GUNDI, ADV.)
AND:
MR. VENKATESHA K. K.,
AGE: 47 YEARS, STAFF NO.547503,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
ASSOCIATES SUBSIDIARIES AND
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S RRB VERTICAL CORPORATE, CREDIT AND
HARIHAR ASSOCIATES WING, HEAD OFFICE, J. C. ROAD,
Location: High
Court of BENGALURU - 560 002, R/O: BANASIRI, MIG 98,
Karnataka, NEAR MUTTU KIRANI SHOP, KHB SATTUR
Dharwad Bench
UDAYAGIRI, EDIGARA BHAVAN ROAD
DHARWAD DIST, DHARWAD - 580.009.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO,
APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB
WA No. 100007 of 2026
HC-KAR
30.10.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.104036 OF 2025 (S-TR),
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant [a Bank] is aggrieved by the writ Court's order dated 30.10.2025 in W.P. No.104036/2025. The respondent has filed this writ petition calling in question the appellants' order dated 16.06.2025 and the consequential relieving order dated 21.06.2025. The writ Court has allowed the writ petition quashing these orders, and the appellant, because of the writ Court's impugned order 30.10.2025, must continue the respondent with its Wing called "Canara Bank Associates, Subsidiaries and RRB Vertical, Corporate Credit and Associates -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR Wing" at its Head Office [hereafter referred to as the 'the Wing with the HO']at Bangalore.
2. The respondent has begun his career as an Officer Scale-I with M/s. Syndicate Bank in the year 2008. In the year 2020 when Syndicate Bank is merged with Canara Bank, he was working as a Senior Manager. The appellant has admitted promotion to him as a Divisional Manager, Senior Managerial Grade-IV, with effect from 01.04.2022 and he is posted in Manipal Circle, and he has worked there until 04.05.2022. He is transferred to Huballi Circle on 05.05.2022, and with effect from 07.05.2023, he is deputed as the Chief Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad.
3. The circumstances that are germane for the present controversy are stated in brief in the following manner. The appellant has issued the Order dated 19.04.2025 posting the respondent to its Wing with the HO, and this repatriation and posting order -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR is consequent to the merger of two Regional Rural Banks and these Banks continue as the Karnataka Grameena Banks ['the Grameena Bank']. The respondent has not reported to duty immediately after the order dated 19.04.2025. The appellant contends that the respondent was permitted to continued to work with the Grameena Bank as requested by such bank and that the order dated 19.04.2025 was also cancelled on 15.05.2025 on its request for the respondent's continuance to streamline certain work.
3.1 The Grameena Bank has issued a relieving letter to the respondent on 02.06.2025, and on 04.06.2025, the respondent has reported to duty with the appellant at the Wing with the HO. The respondent asserts that the merger of the two Regional Rural Banks is with effect from 01.05.2025 and that he is not served with the order dated 15.05.2025. The respondent is permitted to report to -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR work at the HO from 04.06.2025 until he is issued with the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 posting him as Divisional Manager, to Canara Bank, Vijayapura Regional Office, Hubballi Circle.
4. The writ Court has interfered with this order dated 16.06.2025 opining that the respondent is shifted routinely notwithstanding the protection to him as a disabled employee under the appellant's Guidelines on Transfer [the Guidelines]. The writ Court has observed that the respondent has been shifted within 15 days from Bengaluru to Vijayapura and that would be contrary to the Guidelines which must apply to the respondent though the Guidelines would be for the Officers in the General Managerial level. The writ Court has also opined that the exigency pleaded on behalf of the appellant viz., that there is a dire need for a Divisional Manager at Vijayapura Regional Office, Hubballi Circle cannot prevail because it is undisputed that there was a -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR vacuum with this post remaining unfilled for a period of over two years.
5. Sri Pradeep Sawkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondent cannot plead for any benefit under the Guidelines evolved for persons with the benchmark disability given the details of the respondent's posting at different places in Mangalore, Mysore, Manipal, Hassan, Bangalore and Hubballi-Dharwad in his career spanning 17 years, and that the respondent has given in writing that his difficulty in the right hand would not prevent him from traveling or attending to the files as he uses his left hand.
6. On the reasons for the respondent's transfer on 16.06.2025, notwithstanding the order dated 15.05.2025, Sri Pradeep Sawkar emphasizes the following. [i] The respondent was not relieved immediately after 15.05.2025 and neither the respondent made any effort to report at the Wing with -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR the HO immediately thereafter. [ii] The respondent, though repatriated vide the Order 15.05.2025, as a consequence of the merger, was given the posting with the Head Office as part of general transfers. [iii] The Grameena Bank requested the respondent's continuance for some time, and because of such request, the repatriation and posting order dated 19.04.2025 is cancelled. [iv] Another officer is posted to the post indicated for the respondent in the order dated 19.04.2025 and, with the respondent reporting to duty only on 04.06.2025 with he being relieved on 02.06.2025, he is accommodated with the Vijayapura Divisional Office.
7. Sri Pradeep Sawkar, while underscoring that an employee cannot insist on a certain posting as giving postings would be the employer's prerogative based on the exigencies and administrative requirements, submits that the Office of the Divisional Manager fell vacant because the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR incumbent had to be kept under suspension and the respondent, being an Executive Officer with expertise, he is posted there.
8. Sri Raghvendra A. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that this Court must consider that the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of the Guidelines which stipulate that a person with a benchmark disability must be given posting in his/her place of preference and must be continued in the same place if there is desired performance. In this regard, the learned counsel relies upon the terms of the Office Memorandum dated 02.02.20241, and the learned Counsel also submits that the appellant cannot deny that the 1 H. Preference in transfer/posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disability may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent has been displaced within a period of 15 days because he was permitted to report to duty on 05.04.2025 at the Head Office and he continued to be there until the order dated Impugned order dated 16.06.2025.
9. In rejoinder, Sri Pradeep Sawkar submits that the Writ Court has granted an ex parte interim order which is continued until the date of the impugned order, and in view of this, an interim arrangement is made for the Vijayapura Divisional Office and the petitioner is being paid salary for all these months without he actually discharging any responsibility in the Head Office as the posts there have been filled up in terms of the general transfer orders. When queried, Sri Pradeep Sawkar submits that the respondent's presence in Vijaypura Division Office as Divisional Manager would be necessary from the appellant's perspective, and therefore, any order in equity may be considered accordingly.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR
10. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration is:
Whether this Court must interfere with the writ Court's opinion that the appellant's impugned order dated 16.06.2025 and the consequential order dated 21.06.2025 are contrary to the Guidelines.
11. The appellant's decision to issue the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 is in a context, and therefore, the merits of the decision must be examined in such context. The undisputed facts and circumstances that make up the context for the appellant's order dated 16.06.2025 have to be recounted. The respondent was on deputation with a Regional Rural Bank which is merged with another Regional Rural Bank for the creation of the Karnataka Grameena Bank. The respondent was on deputation with a merged Regional Rural Bank between 07.05.2023 and 06.05.2025. The merger of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR these Regional Rural Banks is in April - May 2025, and as a consequence of this, the respondent was issued with the order of repatriation dated 19.04.2025 giving him a posting in the Wing with the HO. The respondent had to report to duty pursuant to this order, and he reported to duty only on 04.06.2025 i.e., after more than 45 days.
12. The respondent is completely silent about why he could not report to duty in terms of the order dated 19.04.2025 until 04.06.2025. This assumes significance because of the reasons offered by the appellant, and these can be recounted thus. The respondent is not relieved by the merged Bank [Grameena Bank] because it wanted him to continue to attend to the transitional issues and that the merged Bank has formally requested for the respondent's continuance for some time2, and therefore, it has issued the next order dated 15.05.2025 cancelling the order dated 19.04.2025. 2 A copy of this communication is not placed on record
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR The Grameena Bank for its reasons, has issued the respondent with relieving letter dated 02.04.2026. Meantime, the appellant completed its general transfer process and another officer was posted to the place indicated to the respondent. The appellant was presented with a piquant situation with the respondent reporting to duty on 04.06.2025 to a post which was occupied by another.
13. The appellant asserts that it is in this context and, because the respondent is an officer of the Executive grade, is accommodated as Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayapura based on the requirement there. These circumstances must receive due consideration has should the respondent's failure to offer explanation for not reporting to duty under the order dated 19.04.2025 until 04.06.2025. This Court opines that the writ Court should have considered these circumstances to test the reasonability of the appellant's decision to post the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent as a Divisional Manager, Vijayapura Division, Hubballi, and because the writ Court has not considered these circumstances, this Court is persuaded to opine that there must be interference.
14. The appellant contends, without disputing that the respondent has a reduced use of the right forelimb, that the he cannot claim preferential treatment in transfers because [a] he has stated in writing that the reduce use of forelimb does not in any manner come in the way of his work, [b] he has been transferred in his long career with Syndicate Bank and on merger with the appellant to different places as admissible under the Guidelines, and [c] an Executive Level officer cannot insist on a particular place and that it is the employers prerogative to deploy its senior offices to meet administrator contingencies.
15. Be these as it may, as observed by this Court, the respondent's posting vide the order dated
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR 16.06.2025 is in a context but before that context emerged, the appellant had indeed posted the respondent to its Head Office in Bengaluru. The appellant must consider lest the decision to post him at Vijayapura Divisional Office and the insistence on his continuation there is seen as being vindictive only because the respondent has availed his remedies in law. As such, this Court is therefore persuaded to opine that the appellant should consider accommodating the respondent in Bengaluru, but that should be as part of the next general transfers which must be in the coming few months.
ORDER
[A] The writ appeal is allowed in part
setting aside the writ Court's
impugned order dated 30.10.2025 in W.P. No.104036/2025 directing the respondent to report to the Vijaypura Divisional Office, Hubballi Circle within 15 days from today.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3720-DB WA No. 100007 of 2026 HC-KAR [B] The respondent is reserved with liberty to file a representation with the appellant for his posting either in Bangalore or any other place of his choice calling upon the appellant to consider the same as part of general transfers for the ensuing year.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KMS / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8