Back
2001 Supreme(Gau) 279
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.Lamare, J.
Gurnam Singh -Appellant
Versus
Union of India -Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140(K) of 2001
Decided On : 14-09-2001
K.Meruno, B.Deb Nath
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless a transfer order is vitiated by malafides or made in violation of statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. The judgment emphasized the discretion of the government in managing the distribution and utilization of its employees' services.
Headnote:
Transfer - Service Transfer - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Director of School Education Madras & others vs. c O. Kapruppa Thevan & another, Union of India & others vs. SL Abbas, Mrs Shilpi Bose & others vs. State of Bihar & others, Ashim Kumar Baruah & others vs. Tanushyam Borgohain & others, (Dr.) Pranabjyoti Deka vs. State of Assam & others, Kuinsong Pangging vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & others, State of MP & another vs SS Kourav & others, State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal & others, B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka & others, Union of India & another vs. BC Chaturvedi, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, Tata Cellular vs. Union of India] - The court discussed various legal provisions and interpretations related to service transfers, emphasizing that unless a transfer order is vitiated by malafides or made in violation of statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the exigencies of administration and public interest in transfer cases. The judgment emphasized that a transferable post does not confer a legally enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place, and the government has the discretion to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government officer, challenged his transfer from Rangapahar to CE, HQ Central Command Lucknow, citing violation of a revised policy and the impact on his son's education. The respondents contended that the transfer was in accordance with Army policy and essential for organizational interests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was not malafide and was made according to the exigency of service. It emphasized that the petitioner's son being a BA 2nd year student did not warrant the same consideration as school-going children in previous cases. The court also noted that the petitioner had already served 2 years and 5 months in the current post, exceeding the normal transfer period.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's transfer, the impact on his son's education, and the consideration of his representation by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless a transfer order is vitiated by malafides or made in violation of statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. It emphasized that a transferable post does not confer a legally enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place, and the government has the discretion to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned transfer order did not call for interference and was devoid of merits. The interim order dated 10.8.2001 was vacated.
2. This petition relates to the transfer of the petitioner vide order dated 9th June, 2001, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. This Court by order dated 28.4.2001 in Misc Application No.54 (K) 2001 has fixed this case for hearing on interim relief on 10.9.2001. When the writ petition was posted before this Court on t 10.9.2001, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. On that date both the learned counsel submitted that instead of hearing the prayer for interim stay, the entire main petition itself can be disposed of. On the consent of the parties this writ petition is heard on merits at the notice of motion stage. The case in short compass is that the petitioner by impugned order dated 9.7.2001 was transferred from Rangapahar Headquarter 137 Works Engineer to CE, HQ Central Command Lucknow by transfer order at Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The said transfer order was served on the petitioner soon after his return from leave when he came back to Rangapahar on 6.8.2001. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is mat according to the revised policy, Annexure 4 to this writ petition, the transfer of the petitioner was violative of that policy, for according to the petitioner he is entitled to be retained in the same post for a period of 3 to 4 d years, according to this policy. Another point raised by the petitioner is that his son who is a B A 2nd year student and studying in Dimapur Govt College is in the midst of his studies and it would be very difficult for the petitioner to leave his son alone in Rangapahar as he is yet to complete his studies for the BA course. The next contention of the petitioner is that in spite of his representation regarding his transfer, the respondents have not considered his representation till the filing of this writ petition. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Mandamus to quash the said impugned transfer order and to direct the respondents not to transfer the petitioner.
3. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has averred that the transfer was malafide and that it is violative of aforesaid guidelines. The petitioner had laid f emphasis on the study of his son as apparent from the statement in the writ petition that his son would complete his BA course in June, 2003 and in the event of his transfer, the petitioner's son will be left without proper care and that his further studies shall be severely affected. More so, when the said son of the petitioner is contemplating of joining the Army and doing his training in NCC in the college.
4. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition contends that the transfer of the petitioner is in accordance with the policy in the Army and that the officer being a Class I officer has to be transferred keeping in view the exigency of his service and administrative requirements to suit the organisational interest. The respondents also contends that the petitioner has no ground in invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as the petitioner is holding a transferable post and that there is no malafide in the transfer not it is violative of the guidelines. In support of their contention the respondents also have annexed the revised policy of transfer for which according to the respondents, the petitioner can continue in tile field area only for a period of 2 to 3 years. In the instant case die petitioner has already completed 2 years and 5 months, contends the respondents.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records.
6. Without going into the facts of the case which is not permissible while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decisions in regard to the transfer has been considered by the Apex Court in many cases and a catena of decisions has been made by the Apex Court as a cr
