Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ., SUMAN SHYAM, J.
The Central Board of Secondary Education, through its Chairman and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Jagadish Barman, S/o. Lt. Rupcharan Barman and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4124 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-09-2024
Transfer - Employment - Transfer Policy - The court discussed the principles governing employee transfers, emphasizing that transfers cannot be interfered with unless issued by an incompetent authority, contravene statutory orders, or are made on mala fide grounds. The court found the transfer valid under these criteria.
Fact of the Case:
The private respondent, after various promotions within the CBSE, was transferred from Guwahati to Thiruvananthapuram. He challenged this transfer before the Tribunal, which found it violated transfer policy and was made mala fide, leading to the petitioners' writ against the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the transfer order, as it was issued by a competent authority and did not violate transfer policy or demonstrate mala fide intent. The transfer was deemed valid and necessary for administrative exigency.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in interfering with the transfer order of the private respondent on grounds of violation of transfer policy and mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfers in an all-India service are subject to administrative exigencies and cannot be interfered with solely on the basis of transfer policy violations or perceived mala fides without substantial evidence.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the Tribunal's order is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.) :
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.163/2024 and Misc. Application No.81/2024 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to be as the private respondent) and has interfered with the transfer order of 02.07.2024 qua the private respondent and has directed the petitioners to allow the private respondent to continue in his current posting as Joint Secretary (Head, Centre of Excellence) CBSE, Guwahati.
2. The relevant brief facts of the case are that the private respondent was working as Assistant in the Assam University since 1994. However, he joined All-India Service of Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter to be referred as “CBSE”) in the year 2002 on the post of Section Officer. Later on, he was promoted as Assistant Secretary, Group A on 14.02.2011 and he was further promoted on 23.02.2018 to the post of Deputy Secretary (Regional Officer) at the Regional Office, Patna. It is to be noticed that since his joining as Section Officer in the CBSE, the private respondent remained posted in Guwahati till February, 2018 when he was promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary (Regional Officer). On his promotion as Deputy Secretary (Regional Officer), the private respondent was posted at Regional Office, CBSE Patna. From February, 2018 to August, 2022, the private respondent remained posted in Patna though in between he was promoted to the post of Joint Secretary vide order dated 04.08.2022. On 17.10.2022, the private respondent was transferred as Head, Centre of Excellence at Guwahati and pursuant to that he joined on the said post on 09.11.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.07.2024 issued by the CBSE, the private respondent was transferred from Guwahati to Thiruvananthapuram as Head CoE.
3. Being aggrieved with the same, the private respondent has approached the Tribunal challenging his transfer to Thiruvananthapuram on various grounds which have been noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024. The CBSE has contested the challenge made by the private respondent to his transfer before the Tribunal. During the course of pendency of the O.A. before the Tribunal, affidavits and counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respective parties and the same were placed on record. After taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal has concluded that as per the settled principles of law, transfer of an employee can be interfered with only on the following three grounds;
(ii) transfer order made in contravention of the extant statutory orders, rules and transfer policy;
(iii) transfer made on mala fide grounds.
After observing these, the Tribunal has recorded its finding that so far as the transfer of the private respondent from Guwahati to Thiruvananthapuram as Head CeO is concerned, the same was issued by the competent authority and therefore, the said order is not liable to be interfered with on that count.
However, on the other two grounds, the Tribunal has concluded that since the transfer order dated 02.07.2024 was issued in violation of para 2.1 of the transfer policy, the same is liable to be interfered with. The Tribunal has opined that as per para 2.1 of the transfer policy, an officer is required to be retained on a posting for at least three years ordinarily. Since the private respondent has not completed three years at Guwahati, his transfer order is illegal. The Tribunal has also opined that the transfer of the private respondent is also in violation of DoPT’s transfer guidelines which provides that as far as possible the husband and wife should be posted together and the private respondent’s wife is t
Transfers of government employees cannot be interfered with unless proven to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions; administrative exigencies govern such decisions.
The court ruled that transfer orders are administrative decisions and can only be interfered with if proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfers within service are at discretion of authorities based on administrative needs, not strictly bound by service tenure guidelines.
Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without reasoned consideration of individual difficulties is impermissible; authorities must pass speaking orders balancing administrative exigency wi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
