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

2007 Supreme(Jhk) 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
M.K. Vinayagam, Permod Kohli, JJ.
Uttam Kujur – Appellants.
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondent
AND
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Appellants.
Vs.
Binod Kumar and Anr. – Respondent
Decided On : 03.05.2007

The main legal point established in the judgment is that where established norms and policies regarding transfer and posting of Government servants exist, there must be valid reasons to deviate from them, and non-observance of the procedure and other conditions prescribed justifies interference by the writ Court.

Headnote:

Transfer - Government Servants - 25th October, 1980 - [Policy and procedure regarding transfer and posting of Government servants]

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the challenge of a transfer order of an Assistant Engineer, Binod Kumar, and the subsequent transfer of another Assistant Engineer, Uttam Kujur, in violation of the established norms and policy regarding transfer and posting of Government servants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfers were made without the recommendation or consultation of the Establishment Committee and were premature, thus arbitrary and not sustainable.

Issues: The issues involved the non-consideration of the transfers by the Establishment Committee, insertion of names by the Minister-in-charge, and the premature nature of the transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where operative guidelines or rules are in place and the transfer is made in violation of any such operative guidelines or rules, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeals, upholding the decision of the learned single Judge to quash the transfer orders.

ORDER

Permod Kohli, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 27th February. 2007, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 42 of 2007, quashing the transfer order of Binod Kumar. respondent No. 5 in L.P.A. No. 74 of 2007 and respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 114 of 2007, the State as also the appellant. Uttam Kujur, have preferred these two appeals. The issue involved in both the appeals being similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Circumstances leading to filing of the writ petition may be summarized as under. Respondent Binod Kumar and the appellant Uttam Kujur both are working as Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the State of Jharkhand. Respondent Binod Kumar was posted as Assistant Engineer, Medical Building Sub-Division No. 1, Bariyatu, Ranchi vide Memo No. 1547 (Bh) dated 16th June, 2006. He joined the place of posting on 19th September, 2006. Vide Notification No. 3885(Bh) dated 30th December, 2006 as many as fifteen Assistant Engineers of Building Construction Department have been transferred. Respondent Binod Kumar, who joined the Medical Building Sub-Division No. 1, Bariyatu. Ranchi, on 19th September, 2006. also came to be transferred vide this order from Medical Building Sub-Division No. 1, Bariyatu, Ranchi to Building Sub-Division, Chas (Bokaro) and the appellant Uttam Kujur, who was earlier posted at Building Sub-Division No. 3, Daltonganj, has been transferred in place of Binod Kumar at Medical Sub-Division No. 1, Bariyatu, Ranchi. Binod Kumar challenged this transfer order in W.P.(S) No. 42 of 2007 on the following grounds: (i) his name has been included in the impugned notification at the instance of the Minister Incharge without recommendation and/or consideration by the Establishment Committee, constituted for the purpose; (ii) the transfer is in contravention of the policy decision of the Government notified vide resolution dated 25th October. 1980, whereby, norms for transfer have been laid down and (iii) transfer of the petitioner is premature having been made just after six months, in violation of the laid down norms.

3. Giving details of the first ground, it is stated that the petitioner has been recently transferred to Ranchi only in the month of June, 2006 after keeping him waiting for one year without posting and he has been performing his duties to the satisfaction of the department. It is stated that the transfer of the 'Assistant Engineers is considered by the Establishment Committee and it is only on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee the Government approves/makes the transfers. Constitution of Establishment Committee for the purposes of consideration of transfers has been laid down under resolution dated 25th October, 1980, In the present case the Establishment Committee recommended only ten transfers. Neither the case of the writ petitioner nor that of Uttam Kujur, present appellant, was considered by the Establishment Committee nor any recommendation made for their transfer. However, the Minister-in-charge with a view to accommodate Uttam Kujur, the appellant, inserted his name and also that of the writ petitioner in the transfer list and on account of bias the writ petitioner has been transferred from Ranch just after six months and Uttam Kujur has been transferred at his place. The writ petitioner has made specific averments in paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 18 of the writ application, alleging bias, stating that the Establishment Committee did not recommend either the name of Binod Kumar or Uttam Kujur and it is only the Minister concerned, who inserted their names with a view to accommodate Uttam Kujur, the appellant herein.

4. As regards the violation of resolution dated 25th October, 1980 is concerned, a copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Vide this resolution, duly published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette of the State of Bihar, comprehensive transfer and posting policy for the Government serva













































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