Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Nalo Nyitan, Son Of Late Tapun Nyitan - Appellant
Versus
The Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, Represented By The Chairman, Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank - Respondent
WP(C) 231 / 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2025
(A) Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Transfer Policy, 2019 - Transfer and posting order - Petitioner challenged transfer from Pasighat to Daporijo before completion of three-year tenure - Transfer policy guidelines not having statutory force - Court found no violation of policy, as transfer was in public interest and approved by competent authority. (Paras 5 , 16 , 18 )
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of interference in transfer orders - Transfer of public servants is at the discretion of the employer unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation - Guidelines are directory, not mandatory. (Paras 22 , 24 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager, challenged a transfer order issued on 31.05.2024, claiming it violated the Transfer Policy of 2019, which mandates a three-year tenure. The petitioner argued that the transfer was arbitrary and without justification. (Paras 2 , 5 , 8 )
Findings of Court:
The transfer order was upheld as it was approved by the competent authority and aligned with the exigencies of service, despite the petitioner's claims of frequent transfers and personal hardships. (Paras 15 , 26 )
Issues: Whether the transfer order violated the Transfer Policy and if the authority issuing the order was competent. (Paras 8 , 19 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Transfer Policy does not confer an indefeasible right against transfer in the interest of public service, and the authority's discretion in transfers is upheld unless there is clear malafide or statutory breach. (Paras 16 , 24 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer and posting order dated 31.05.2024, issued by the General Manager, (OPS & Admin), Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, whereby, as many as 35 officers, including the petitioner, have been transferred. The petitioner is sought to be transferred and posted from Pasighat branch to Daporijo Branch.
3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner who was working in the capacity of Branch Manager (MM-II), Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank at Branch, Aalo vide order dated 14.06.2022 was transferred and posted to Pasighat Branch and had joined on 17.06.2022.
4. The respondent authorities have issued a common transfer order No.HR/1310 dated 31.05.2024, whereby, as many as 35 officers/officials, including the petitioner, have been transferred, wherein, the petitioner is sought to be transferred from Pasighat branch to Daporijo Branch and the respondent No.3 has been transferred in place of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.06.2024, the respondent No.3 has been released on 11.06.2024 and directed to report to the transferee branch on 13.06.2024 and the petitioner is sought to be released on 15.06.2024 and to report to transferee branch on 17.06.2024.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of the policy guidelines, which regulates the transfer and posting of the officers/officials under the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, namely Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Transfer Policy 2019 dated 13.12.2019, wherein, inter-alia, it is provided that the tenure of transfer and posting of all the category of officers and staffs to a particular place of posting shall be 3 (three) years. It is contended that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.3 has completed the tenure of three years and the present transfer of the petitioner is within a short period of time and before the completion of 3 (three) years. It is further contended that the respondent No.3 has been transferred from Yazali Branch to Pasighat Branch vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024 without any exigency of service.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved of the transfer and posting order dated 31.05.2024 has filed representation for re-consideration of the petitioner on 03.06.2024 addressing to the Chairman, Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, Head Office, Naharlagun, however, the same has not been considered. The petitioner ventilated his grievance for re-consideration of his transfer on the ground that he has not yet completed the normal tenure of three years and has been subjected to frequent transfer. He also submits that the petitioner has started constructing his residential building and the construction work is going on half way. Moreover, due to demise of his father and he being the eldest male member of the family, has to settle various pending works related to transfer of property etc.
7. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been issued without there being any reason for transferring the petitioner before completion of normal tenure of three years and only to accommodate the respondent No.3. He submits that as per the Policy Guideline of the Bank, particularly Clause 13(g) provides that the officer/employee should not be posted in the same branch for a period of 6 years. Even after six years, he or she should not be posted in the same capacity at the branch where he or she worked previously, subject to operational and administrative feasibility, whereas, in the present case, the respondent No.3 has been sought to be posted at Pasighat by defying the above guidelines.
8. Mr. Jamoh, learned c
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
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 interes....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer orders must comply with relevant statutory rules and should not be passed in lieu of punishment. The judgment also emphasizes the sig....
Management has the discretion to transfer employees based on organizational needs, and courts cannot interfere in such administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of policy.
Transfers within service are at discretion of authorities based on administrative needs, not strictly bound by service tenure guidelines.
The Transfer Policy for lady officers allows for transfers within the same zone without invoking the three-year tenure requirement, as this applies only to inter-zonal transfers.
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
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
