Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. N. Pathak, J.
Shashi Bhushan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 1517 of 2024
Decided On : 12-07-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Transfer of government servant - Frequent transfers without valid reasons challenged - Court held that transfer is an incident of service and can be challenged only if shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions - Petitioner failed to establish malafide intent or violation of rules. (Paras 9, 10, 16, 18)
(B) Administrative Exigency - Court emphasized that transfer orders based on administrative exigency should not be interfered with unless proven otherwise - No concrete evidence of malafide intention presented by the petitioner. (Paras 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the notification for transfer issued under the Election Commission's guidelines, claiming frequent transfers without valid reasons and violation of constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, stating that the transfer was justified based on administrative exigency and did not violate any statutory provisions.
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer was punitive, issued without jurisdiction, or based on malafide intentions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfers are a prerogative of the authorities and should not be interfered with unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. N. Pathak, J.
Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Notification dated 15.03.2024, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. From the order dated 21.03.2024, it appears that status quo as on date was directed to be maintained in view of the fact that petitioner was not relieved from the post and was still working and the notification dated 15.03.2024 was not given effect in view of Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission.
4. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed on the post of Revenue Clerk in the year 1990 and later on promoted to the post of Circle Inspector – cum – Kanoongo and thereafter to the post of Circle Officer. After his promotion as a Circle Officer, petitioner was initially posted as Circle Officer, Churchu (Hazaribagh) vide Notification NO. 02, dated 25.02.2021, issued from the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. After two years of his initial posting, he was transferred to Hazaribagh Sadar vide notification dated 26.10.2023. Within a span of three month of posting as a Circle Officer, Hazaribagh Sadar, he was again transferred to Govindpur (Dhanbad) vide notification dated 31.01.2024. Again, pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2024, the respondent no. 7 has been transferred to the post of Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad and petitioner has been asked to give his joining in the Department. Being aggrieved by frequent transfer without any valid reason, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.
5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Aparajita Bhardwaj and Tanya Singh argues that petitioner has been disturbed in terms of his posting third time in a short span of about five months and present one in a span of one month and seven days only and the respondent no. 7 has been posted on the post occupied by him recently i.e. Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad and petitioner has been asked to give his joining in the Department (waiting for posting). Learned Sr. Counsel submits that petitioner has acted very bonafidely and abided by the directions of the department. However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned notification dated 15.03.2024 has been issued just to accommodate the respondent no. 7 without following any rules and procedures. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that as per the rules of business, no transfer can generally take place other than on administrative grounds except in the month of June – July of a year which earlier used to occur only in the month of June and December with the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. The State respondents have chosen to flout all the norms and procedures and giving go-bye to the procedures, have issued the impugned order just to accommodate the respondent no. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that the Election Commission of India announced the Schedule of Elections to be held in entire country on 16.03.2024 and as such in order to save the skin from technicalities, the impugned order though was released and circulated on 16.03.2024, but it was dated 15.03.2024. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that pursuant to Annexure-5, the Election Commission of India issued direction to all the Departments on 16.03.2024 not to make any exercise of handing/taking over charge of any office consequent to any pre-existing order after announcement of schedule of election. Petitioner was surprised that the respondent no. 7, without even being relieved from Simariya, Chatra, arrived at the office of Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad though the petitioner, worked in the Circle Office of Govindpur, Dhanbad till 5:00 in the evening on 16.03.2024 and had no information of any such notification dated 15.03.2024. Learned Sr. Advocate further argues that neither the petitioner was allowed to handove
Transfer orders in public service are valid unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
The court emphasized that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provision or issued by an incompetent pe....
Transfers should be made based on genuine public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations of elected representatives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of transfer is a prerogative of the employer, and the courts cannot interfere with transfer orders made on administrative grounds un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
