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

2008 Supreme(Gau) 804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Jasti Chelameswar and Biplab Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Tohelisumi
Vs.
State of Nagaland and Ors.
Writ Appeal No. 255 of 2004
Decided On: 20.11.2008

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Goswami, M.H. Rajbarbhuya, B. Chakraborty and R. Chetri, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: T. Khro and S.K. Deori, Advs.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exercising transfer powers without yielding to political pressure or extraneous considerations, and the need to consider public interest and administrative considerations in transfer decisions.

Headnote:

Transfer - Government Servants - [School Education Department, Transfer of Government Officials] - The court discussed the principles relating to transfer of Government servants and highlighted the misuse of power by the Parliamentary Secretary to accommodate a private individual, leading to the transfer of the writ Petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of public interest and the need to exercise transfer powers without yielding to political pressure or extraneous considerations.

Fact of the Case:

The writ Petitioner, a Headmistress, was transferred to accommodate the Parliamentary Secretary's desire to have a specific individual appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, leading to the transfer of the Petitioner. The court found that the transfer was not in the interest of public service and was a result of political interference.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer was a result of political interference and not in the interest of public service. It emphasized the misuse of power by the Parliamentary Secretary and the failure to consider public interest and administrative considerations in the transfer.

Issues: The issues involved the misuse of power by the Parliamentary Secretary, the lack of public interest in the transfer, and the failure to provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard before the transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer was a result of political interference and not in the interest of public service. It emphasized the importance of exercising transfer powers without yielding to political pressure or extraneous considerations.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of transfer was set aside and quashed, providing consequential benefits to the Appellant/writ Petitioner.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The Appellant who was the writ Petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of her writ petition, which was filed challenging the order of her transfer, which was admittedly issued in extraneous consideration to accommodate the Respondent. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of transfer primarily on the ground that the political authority at whose behest the transfer order was issued was not party Respondent to the proceeding. The learned Single Judge has also referred to some authorities both of the Apex Court as well as this Court so as to highlight the principles relating to transfer of Government servants to sustain the impugned order of transfer. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ms. T. Krow, learned State Counsel. We have also heard Mr. S.K. Deori, learned Counsel for the private Respondent.

3. The Appellant while was serving as Headmistress of Government High School, Asuto was transferred and posted as Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zunheboto against the vacancy occurred due to superannuation of the incumbent. While she was continuing as such, the Parliamentary Secretary, Industries and Commerce, unconnected with the Education Department desired posting of the Respondent No. 4 as the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zunheboto with immediate effect. The note furnished by him on 17.3.2008 to the Education Minister, Nagaland is reproduced below:

Honourable Shri Nyeiwang Konyak, Education Minister, Nagaland, Kohima. Mrs. Ati Yepthomi, Headmaster, Govt. High School, Satakha from my constituency. I want her to be DIS, Zonheboto with immediate effect.

Thanking you for your cooperation.

Dr. K.C. Nihoshe

17.3.08

Parliamentary Secretary, Industries and

Commerce, Nagaland, Kohima

4. It is on the above basis the Respondent No. 4 was transferred and posted as DIS, Zunheboto at the cost of the writ Petitioner/Appellant. Although in the note there was no mention about the Appellant, but her transfer from Zunheboto was bound to follow since the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary was to have the Respondent No. 4 as the DIS, Zunheboto.

5. We have verified the file bearing No. EDS/P/AHM/HM/DIS/98 Vol.-I of the School Education Department. On perusal of the same, it appears that after the aforesaid note of the Parliamentary Secretary endorsed to the Education Minister, the process was initiated to implement the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary, as a consequence of which, the axe fell on the Appellant. Although, the file has revealed that certain re-shuffling was on the card, but till the desire expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, there was no proposal for transfer of the Appellant from Zunheboto. It is an irony that such transfer of the Appellant vis-a-vis the Respondent has been described as the transfer "in the interest of public service". As to whether the Appellant in the process of reshuffling and in due consideration of the other attending facts and circumstances involving public interest and in the exigencies of service as they are understood in the common parlance, would have been transferred or not is altogether a different matter, but to transfer her just to accommodate the Respondent as per the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary, certainly cannot be said to be in the interest of public service.

6. In the aforesaid context, it will also be pertinent to note that when the writ petition was entertained with an interim order by way of directing the Respondents to maintain status quo as on the date of passing the interim order i.e. 21.4.2008, the aforesaid Parliamentary Secretary again stepped into the matter unauthorisedly issued the following direction on 10.6.2008:

Office Establishment of DIS.ZBTO is directed not to re-allocate assignment of files till the Court Case is settled in regards to transfer case of DIS.ZBTO. Incumbent officer holding office on stay order, as su


























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 Back to top