2018 Supreme(J&K) 673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Rajesh Gupta - Petitioner
Vs.
State of J&K & Ors. - Respondents
SWP No. 1756 of 2018, IA Nos. 01 & 02 of 2018
Decided On : 22-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K. Khajuria
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Sharma
Important Point – No employee can claim his transfer and posting at a particular place.
Headnote:J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1956 – Rule 27 – Reservation Act, 2004 – Section 3(3) – Transfer – In the matter of transfer and posting, employer has unfettered discretion and no employee can claim his transfer and posting at a particular place – So long as order of transfer is not vitiated by malafides, same cannot be interfered with by Courts – Obligation is cast on an employee who is appointed on the basis of being a candidate belonging to RBA or ALC category to serve in such areas for a period of not less than seven years and in case he declines his services are liable to be terminated – State is under no obligation to necessarily keep such person in such areas, though employee who has taken benefit of reservation, may not be in a position to seek his transfer outside such area till he completes seven years of service in such areas – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 16, 17 and 18, 19 and 21)
Result – Writ Petition dismissed.
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges his transfer from In-charge ARTO Board of Inspection (Passenger) Jammu to In-charge ARTO Doda effected by respondent No.1 vide Government Order No.64-TR of 2018 dated 20.08.2018.
2. Briefly stated, the facts as narrated by the petitioner in this writ petition are that vide Government Order No. 68-TR of 2017 dated 24.08.2017, the petitioner, who was posted as In-charge ARTO Udhampur, came to be transferred and posted as In-charge ARTO, Board of Inspection (Passenger) Jammu. It is submitted that respondent No.3, who was working as ARTO, Board of Inspection (Passenger) Jammu, came to be transferred and posted as ARTO Doda vide Government Order No.58-TR of 2018 dated 10.08.2018, but was transferred back to Jammu vide order impugned within ten days. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner has been transferred to Doda only with a view to facilitate the posting of respondent No.3 in Jammu.
3. In the aforesaid background facts, the petitioner assails the order impugned, primarily, on the following grounds:
i. That the petitioner is a qualified Automobile Engineer having done Diploma in Automobile Engineering in the year 1993 and, therefore, technically qualified to hold the post of ARTO, Board of Inspection (Passenger) I in terms of SRO 108 dated 27.02.2008 and respondent No.3, who is a Jr. KAS officer not holding the technical qualification could not be posted as ARTO Board of Inspection (Passenger).
ii. That respondent No.3 was selected and appointed as Jr. KAS Officer in the category of resident of backward area (RBA) and, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 3(2) of J&K Reservation Act, 2004 read with Circular Instructions issued by GAD under endorsement No. GAD/MTG/RBIV/29/2012 dated 21st September 2012, he is liable to be posted in his backward area only.
iii. That the order of transfer and posting of the petitioner as ARTO Doda is mala fide, in that, the same has been issued only to accommodate respondent No.3 and to bring him back to Jammu which was done by the respondents within a span of ten days from the date of posting of respondent No.3 and;
iv. That the petitioner has not completed his minimum tenure of two years at Jammu as ARTO, Board of Inspection (Passenger), Jammu and, therefore, in view of the statutory provisions of SRO 307 dated 11.07.2018, the impugned order is not sustainable being against the statute.
4. In response to the notice issued to the respondents, respondent No.3 alone has filed objections. The official respondents, however, have chosen to remain absent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The only statutory provision pertaining to the transfer of a Government employee is Rule 27 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1956”) which unequivocally provides that an employee born on a particular service or class of service may be required to serve in any part of J&K State in any post borne on the cadre of such service or class. In the matter of transfer and posting, the employer has unfettered discretion and no employee can claim his transfer and posting at a particular place. So long as the order of transfer is not vitiated by mala fides and is otherwise not in violation of any statute or suffers for want of jurisdiction of the Authority issuing it, the same cannot be interfered with by the Courts.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the scope of interference in transfer matters, in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal v. UOI and ors., AIR 2005 SC 3341 in paragraph No.9, held as under:
“9. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, the appellants, who were lady teachers in primary schools, were transferred on their requests to places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents, who were displaced by the appellants, challenged the validity of the transfer orders before the High Cou