Transfers must have justification based on administrative exigency or public interest, and cannot be arbitrary; employees have a legitimate expectation of reasonable tenure in their positions.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Annexure P3 and Annexure P-4, dated 20.09.2024 and 24.09.2024, respectively, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred to Sub-Tehsil Nither, District Kullu as a Naib-Tehsildar, without allowing him to complete his normaltenure at his present place of posting i.e. Tauni Devi.

2. When this case was listed on 26.09.2024, the following order was passed:-

“CMP No.18142 of 2024

Notice in above terms. The grievance of the petitioner is that without allowing him to complete his normal tenure at Tauni Devi, where he was posted in the month of January, 2024, after his promotion against the post of Naib Tehsildar, he was firstly ordered to be transferred to Sandhol vide Annexure P-3 and thereafter said order stands modified vide Annexure P-4 and now he has been ordered to be transferred to Sub Tehsil Nither, District Kullu. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before his posting at Tauni Devi, the petitioner was serving at Sandhol, which station is about 50 kilometers away approximately from Tauni Devi.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at Tauni Devi and the impugned transfer order does do not spell out as to what necessitated the transfer of the petitioner without allowing him to complete his normal tenure at the said station, the operation of Annexure P-4 is hereby stayed till further orders. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve at Tauni Devi as a Naib Tehsildar, de-hors as to whether he stands relieved or not and respondent No.4 shall be directed to rejoin the station, where he was serving before the issuance of notification dated 24.09.2024. In other words, respondent- Department shall maintain status quo ante, as it existed before the issuance of notification dated 24.09.2024.”

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings i.e. the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondents along-with documents appended therewith.

4. The petitioner has been transferred from Tauni Devi, where he was posted on promotion in the month of January, 2024. Before that he was serving at Sandhole, where he served for a normal tenure though against a lower post. The distance between Tauni Devi and Sandhole is admittedly of about 50 Kms.

5. The reason given in the reply by the respondents justifying the transfer of the petitioner is that the transfer has been effected with the approval of the Minister In-charge in terms of the policy of the respondents-State, governing transfers and further it is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present place of posting. It is also the stand of the Department that the cadre of the petitioner is a Divisional cadre and as the transfer has not been effected in violation thereof, therefore also, the impugned transfer order is not amenable to judicial review.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the transfer of the petitioner from Tauni Devi to Sub-Tehsil Nither after a short stay of about eight months, in the facts of this case, is not sustainable. Of course, it is the prerogative of the employer as to where an employee is to be posted but then said prerogative cannot be exercised by the employer in an arbitrary way. It has to be exercised either on account of some administrative exigency or in public interest.

7. The reply filed by the respondents does not spells out any administrative exige