SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1204

C.K.THAKKER, MARKANDEY KATJU
Mohd. Masood Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • Courts should only interfere with transfer orders of public servants in very rare cases, as transfers are considered an administrative decision and an exigency of service (!) (!) .
  • An order of transfer is part of the service conditions of an employee and generally should not be disturbed by courts unless the order is mala fide, violates service rules, or the issuing authorities lacked competence (!) (!) .
  • Even if a transfer is made on the recommendation of a Member of Parliament or MLA, it does not automatically invalidate the transfer order; the government has the authority to transfer employees based on various reasons, including complaints against the employee (!) (!) .
  • The scope of judicial review over transfer orders under constitutional provisions is limited, and courts should avoid interfering unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or violation of norms (!) (!) .
  • In the specific case, the transfer was upheld as valid, and the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that transfers are within the administrative domain and courts should exercise restraint in such matters (!) (!) .

Let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect.


JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1110 (S/B) of 2005.

3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Muzaffarnagar, had in his writ petition challenged his transfer by the State Government by order dated 21.6.2005 as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mawana, District Meerut. Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service vide B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka,1 AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar,2 AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. N.P. Thomas,3 AIR 1993 SC 1605, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas,4 AIR 1993 SC 2444, etc.

5.In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt,5 AIR 1993 SC 2486 this Court observed







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top