Transfer of government servants is a matter of public interest and administrative convenience, and the courts should not interfere with such transfers unless they are mala fide or violative of any statutory rule.

Headnote:
TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Rajasthan Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1970 - Rule 16 - Transfer of government servant - Legality - Mala fide - Public interest - Administrative reasons - Interference by court.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a government employee, challenged the transfer order issued by the government, contending that it was mala fide and violated his right to continue at a particular place beyond a certain period. The plaintiff had been posted at Bikaner for over five years, and the transfer order sought to exchange his posting with another employee, Radhey Shyam, who had been posted at Balotra for over 21/2 years.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transfer order was not mala fide and was issued in public interest and for administrative reasons. The court observed that the plaintiff had no vested right to remain posted at Bikaner for over five years and that the government had the policy of effecting transfers after about 3 years. The court also noted that the transfer order was not violative of any statutory rule or mala fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer order was mala fide and violated the plaintiff's right to continue at a particular place beyond a certain period. 2. Whether the court could interfere with the transfer order issued by the government.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A government employee has no vested right to continue to remain at a particular place beyond a certain period. 2. Transfer of a government servant at a place where his daughter may get better facilities for her treatment/after care particularly when the incumbent of that post has completed five years cannot be said to be in any way mala fide. 3. The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the transfer order was not mala fide and was issued in public interest and for administrative reasons.

JUDGMENT

1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code against the order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated July 28, 1993 by which he has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Bikaner dated July 22, 1993, directing the defendant- respondents No. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner-plaintiff Jagdish Prasad to continue to work at Bikaner and defendant-respondent Radhey Shyam to work at Balotra. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

2. The plaintiff Jagdish Prasad and defendant Radhey Shyam are in the service of the Government of Rajasthan as Junior Accountants. The plaintiff Jagdish Prasad is posted in Social Welfare Department, Pungal, Bikaner for over five years and the defendant Radhey Shyam is posted at Balotra for over 21/2 years. By order dated May 21, 1993, their postings were exchanged. Thereon the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and moved an application for temporary injunction. All the these defendants filed their replies seriously opposing the application for temporary injunction. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Munsif allowed the application by its order dated July 22, 1993 and on appeal it was set aside by the learned District Judge as said above.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned District Judge has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing the appeals of the defendants and setting aside the said order of the learned Munsif. He contended that the learned District Judge did not consider all the material on record and the record perused was not properly considered. He also did not consider that the defendant Radhey Shyam was not a fit person and three departmental enquiries are pending against him. He further contended that the defendant Radhey Shyam was transferred to Bikaner on his own request on the ground that his daughter is a cancer patient, she required treatment either at Jaipur or Bikaner and he has been granted Rs. 2 lacs for this purpose and in fact his daughter is servicing as a teacher at Balotra and she would be taken to Bombay for her treatment. He lastly contended that it is well proved from the material on record that the said transfer order was passed simply to accommodate the defendant Radhey Shyam at Bikaner.

4. There is no substance in the revision petition. The learned District Judge has stated in paras No. 6 and 7 of his order that the plaintiff Jagdish Prasad is posted at Bikaner for last five years. This fact has not been challenged in the revision petition. A Government employee has no right to continue to remain at particular place beyond certain period. It is the policy of the Government to effect transfer after about 3 years. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to what right the plaintiff-petitioner has to continue to remain at Bikaner for over five years. When he has no right to remain at Bikaner, there is no question of any prima facie case in his favour.

5. The learned District Judge has discussed the matter thoroughly and carefully. Transfer of a Government servant at a place where his daughter may get better facilities for her treatment/after care particularly when the incumbent of that post has completed five years cannot be said to be in any way mala fide. He has rightly said that Jagat Prakash Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR 171 is not applicable in this case. It has not been pointed out as to what material has not been considered by the learned District Judge. He has also observed that the plaintiff Jagdish Prasad has not alleged either in his plaint or application or affidavit that the transfer has been effected on account of mala fide intention. It has been observed in Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1994(1) SCT 46 (SC) : AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1605 at page paras 6, 7 and 8 as follows:-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1993 Supreme(Raj) 636

Transfer of government servants is a matter of public interest and administrative convenience, and the courts should not interfere with such transfers unless they are mala fide or violative of any statutory rule.

Cases Referred (4)