2023 Supreme(Gau) 1318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Gyati Pushang – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 467 of 2023
Decided On : 22-11-2023

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interest. The judgment emphasized that transfer should not be made for extraneous considerations or to accommodate another person, and that administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the transfer policy implementation, but may not confer a vested right enforceable by a writ of mandamus unless the transfer order is mala-fide, contrary to statutory provisions, or issued by an incompetent authority.

Headnote:

Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Transfer and Posting Guidelines - [Transfer] - [Administrative Exigency] - [B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 131; Kemo Lollen vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, (2018) 5 GLR 21; Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 150; Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 899; State of Haryana and Others vs. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306; Punjab and Sind Bank and Others vs. Durgesh Kuwar, (2020) 19 SCC 46; Pojom Pade vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, 2011 (2) GLT 186; Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 260] - The court discussed the principles of transfer and posting guidelines, administrative exigency, and the discretion of the appointing authority. It emphasized that the power of transfer should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, and should be based on public interest. The court also highlighted that transfer should not be made for extraneous considerations or for accommodating another person for undisclosed reasons. The judgment emphasized that transfer is an exigency of service and that administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the transfer policy implementation, but they may not confer a vested right enforceable by a writ of mandamus unless the transfer order is mala-fide, contrary to statutory provisions, or issued by an incompetent authority. The court also emphasized that senior officers should not mortgage their discretion and decision-making authority at the behest of politicians without administrative exigency. The judgment concluded that the impugned transfer order, made without administrative exigency and public interest, was not sustainable in law and set it aside and quashed it.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Block Development Officer (BDO), challenged an order transferring him from Ziro-II (Yachuli) to Jengging and replacing him with a private respondent. The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the guidelines for transfer and posting of officers and staff in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, as it occurred before the completion of the prescribed two-year tenure at a particular place. The petitioner contended that the transfer was made at the behest of the Hon’ble Education Minister, without any public interest or administrative exigency.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned transfer order was issued based on the recommendation of the Hon’ble Minister, Education, without any discernible administrative exigency or public interest. The court held that the respondent authority had mortgaged their decision-making authority to accommodate the private respondent, which was a colorable exercise of power. The court set aside and quashed the impugned transfer order, directing the respondent authority to make appropriate decisions for transfer and posting after the completion of the petitioner's two-year tenure, independent of any recommendation or representation, purely on administrative exigency and public interest.

Issues: The issues involved in the case were the validity of the transfer order, compliance with transfer and posting guidelines, administrative exigency, and the influence of the Hon’ble Minister, Education, in the transfer decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles that transfer and posting should be made for administrative exigency and public interest, and not for extraneous considerations or to accommodate another person. The court emphasized that the appointing authority should exercise the power of transfer honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, and should not mortgage their decision-making authority at the behest of politicians without administrative exigency. The court also highlighted that administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the transfer policy implementation, but they may not confer a vested right enforceable by a writ of mandamus unless the transfer order is mala-fide, contrary to statutory provisions, or issued by an incompetent authority.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned transfer order was set aside and quashed. The respondent authority was directed to make appropriate decisions for transfer and posting after the completion of the petitioner's two-year tenure, independent of any recommendation or representation, purely on administrative exigency and public interest.