IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Nabajyoti Mishra, S/o Anil Kr. Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
The Assam State Ware Housing Corporation And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 1061 of 2025
Decided on : 13-08-2025
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. C Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 14.02.2025, whereby he was transferred from the post of Deputy Manager, Finance, Head Officer, F&A to Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Silchar center, in order to perform the functions of accounting matters of the Silchar and Karimganj centers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 10.08.2017 as Deputy Manager, Finance at the Accounts Branch of the Head Office of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation on contractual basis.
4. Thereafter, the respondent Assam State Warehousing Corporation by order dated 10.08.2017 engaged the service of the petitioner as Deputy Manager Finance (Contractual) in the Office of the Managing Director, Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Guwahati.
5. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized by order dated 17.02.2021. In the meantime, by order dated 14.02.2025, the Managing Director of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation, respondent transferred the petitioner from the said post of Deputy Manager, Finance, Head Office to Silchar Center.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer, the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Mr. C Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner having been appointed to a post which is not transferable as per the terms and conditions of the subject Advertisement read with the Engagement Order in question, the impugned transfer order is bad in law. He further submits that by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has been transferred to Silchar center to perform the functions of accounting matters of the two centers in question and as such, the petitioner has been demoted to the utter prejudice of his service prospects. He further submits that under Section 20 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act] read with Regulation 68 and 69 of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1989], the Board of Directors being the competent authority to order transfer, the impugned transfer by the Managing Director is without jurisdiction.
8. Per contra, Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that though initially the service of the petitioner was on contractual basis as per the engagement letter dated 10.08.2017, however, the same having been regularized later on, the service conditions applicable to the staff of the respondent Corporation are applicable. He further submits that under the existing Regulations, it is the Managing Director, who being the appointing authority for the post held by the petitioner is competent and authorized to transfer the petitioner. He accordingly submits that the impugned transfer order having been issued by the Managing Director, the same is valid. He further submits that the impugned transfer order is made in the interest of the respondent Corporation due to exigencies of service and hence, the same ought not to be interfered with.
9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. R Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the following decisions –
(i) Roshal Lal Tandon -Vs- Union of India , reported in (1968) 1 SCR 185
(ii) Union Public Service Commission -Vs- Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others, reported in 2006 (2) Supreme 221
(iii) Rajesh Kumar Singh -Vs- District Basic Education Officer and Others , reported in 2022 4 ADJ 535.
10. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.
11. Apt at the outset to refer to the subject Advertisement and the Engage
Roshal Lal Tandon -Vs- Union of India
Union Public Service Commission -Vs- Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others
Rajesh Kumar Singh -Vs- District Basic Education Officer and Others
A transfer order is valid if issued by the competent authority and is an administrative necessity, barring cases of mala fides or arbitrariness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of transfer is a prerogative of the employer, and the courts cannot interfere with transfer orders made on administrative grounds un....
Transfers of employees in public service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
The court affirmed that transfer orders are administrative decisions and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a....
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.