SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(HP) 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
Jagdish Chand –Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 1797 of 2020
Decided On : 01-07-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Anup Rattan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, Vinod Thakur, Vikas Rathore, Desh Raj Thakur, Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate

The employer has the exclusive authority to determine the place and duration of an employee's service, and judicial review of transfer orders is limited to specific grounds such as contravention of statutory rules or establishment of mala fides.

Headnote:

Transfer - Administrative Transfer - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Public Interest - Administrative Exigency - Mala Fides - Court's Limited Review - [Transfer] - [Administrative Transfer] - [Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director of Education (School and Plus Two) 1992] - The court discussed the principles related to administrative transfers, emphasizing that transfer is a condition of service and does not adversely affect the employee's status or emoluments. The court highlighted that the employer has the exclusive authority to determine the place and duration of an employee's service, and judicial review is limited to cases of contravention of statutory rules or establishment of mala fides. The court also emphasized that transfer orders should be made in public interest or administrative exigency and not arbitrarily or for extraneous considerations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a government employee, challenged a transfer order to the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education, citing lack of consent and absence of public interest or administrative exigency.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer was made in public interest and administrative exigency, and the petitioner's services could be transferred based on the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director of Education (School and Plus Two) 1992.

Issues: Consent for transfer, public interest, administrative exigency

Ratio Decidendi: The employer has the exclusive authority to determine the place and duration of an employee's service. Judicial review is limited to cases of contravention of statutory rules or establishment of mala fides. Transfer orders should be made in public interest or administrative exigency and not arbitrarily or for extraneous considerations.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Transfer Order, dated 16.6.2020 (Annexure P5), the Petitioner has filed the instant Petition for the grant of following substantive relief:

(i) That the impugned Transfer Order, dated 16.6.2020 (Annexure P5), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer (History) on 21.11.1994 and served at different places. In the year 2013, he was appointed as Principal, DIET and was lastly posted as Principal, DIET at Hamirpur. Now, vide impugned Notification dated 16.6.2020 (Annexure P5), the Petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education (Inspection Cell), Hamirpur.

3. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned transfer has been made on the basis of D.O. Note issued by Respondent No. 2 and thus, the Transfer Order is liable to be set-aside in view of the law laid down by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1551 of 2017 titled as Prem Thakur v. State of H.P. and others.

4. Another contention put-forth by the Petitioner is that being an Employee of the Higher Education Department, the Petitioner cannot be sent on deputation to the Elementary Education without his consent.

5. Lastly, it was contended that there is no Public interest or administrative exigency involved in the transfer, therefore, being a colourable exercise of power, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the Public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the Petitioner is State Government Employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other within the District in case it is a District cadre post and throughout the State in case he holds a State cadre post. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the Orders of Transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the Appropriate Authority to decide. The Courts and Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to "proper place". It is for the administration to take appropriate decision.

8. Even the administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redressal but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the Competent Authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in Public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. Even if, the Order of Transfer is made in transgression of administrative Guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as it does not confer any legally enforceable rights unless the same is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. The Government is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its Employees.

9. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in Public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top