Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.Katju
GAYATRI DEVI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 08 May 1997
M. W. R No. 27/23 of 1996
TRANSFER AND POSTING - GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - ABUSE OF POWER - POLITICAL INTERFERENCE - MALA FIDE - INFRACTION OF NORMS - OBJECTIVE CRITERIA - HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE - GUIDELINES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PUBLIC INTEREST - ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCY - ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the impugned order dated 13-8-96, which cancelled her transfer from Gopiganj to Bhadohi. The petitioner alleged that her transfer was cancelled due to the intervention of a Member of Parliament at the behest of respondent No. 4.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was passed solely on the dictates of a politician and not on any administrative exigency. The Court held that transfer orders have to be passed on administrative grounds and not on the dictates of a politician. The Court also observed that frequent transfers of government servants entail a lot of hardship on the civil servant as well as his family, apart from the expenditure involved.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's transfer was arbitrary and mala fide? 2. Whether transfer orders can be set aside on the grounds of violation of a statutory rule, mala fides, or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing transfers? 3. Whether the State Government should formulate objective criteria and guidelines regarding transfers and postings of government servants at all levels?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and mala fide as it was passed solely on the dictates of a politician and not on any administrative exigency. The Court relied on the settled law that transfer orders have to be passed on administrative grounds and not on the dictates of a politician. 2. The Court held that transfer orders can be set aside on three grounds: (1) Violation of a statutory rule, (2) Mala fides, or (3) Infraction of any professed norm or principle governing transfers. 3. The Court directed the State Government to form a High Powered Committee to formulate objective criteria and guidelines regarding transfers and postings of government servants at all levels.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. The Court directed the Director of Health to pass fresh orders on purely administrative considerations regarding the posting of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 without being influenced by any politician or authority.
This petition furnishes a typical instance of a highly pernicious virus which has crept into the governance of this State, namely, the blatant and persistent abuse of the power of the transfer and post ing of government servants on political, caste, monetary or other extraneous con siderations instead of an administrative ground and in the public interest.
2. I have heard Sri. VK. Singh who was appointed as amicus curiae by the order of this Court dated 23-3- 97 to assist the petitioner, Sri Devendra Pratap who has appeared for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13-8- 96, Annexure 8 to the writ petition by which the petitioners transfer from Gopiganj to Bhadohi was can celled. The petitioner was working as Attendant-Nurse-cum-Midwife in Community Health Centre, Gopiganj and she was trans ferred to Bhadohi by order dated 24-6-96, Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner joined at Bhadohi on 6-7-97 as stated in para 8 of the writ petition and she has also been paid salary at Community Health Centre, Bhadohi. She has alleged that her son who is a student of Class X is taking coaching class at Bhadohi. In para 11 of the writ petition it is stated that respondent No. 4 approached Smt. Phoolan Devi, Member of Parliament who got the transfer order dated 24-6-96 cancelled by the impugned order dated 13-8-96. A perusal of the order dated 13-8-96 shows that it has been mentioned there that the said order had been passed on the direction of Smt. Phoolan Devi, Mem ber of Parliament. The order states:
Thus it is evident from the impugned order dated 13-8-96 itself that this orderwas passed on the direction of Smt. Phoolan Devi, Member of Parliament.
4. In my opinion the impugned order is wholly arbitrary as it has been passed solely on the dictates of a politician (as the order expressly states) and not on any administra tive exigency. It is settled law that transfer orders have to be passed on administrative grounds and not on the dictates of a politician [vide Pawan Kumar Srivastava v. U. P State Electricity Board, 1995 (1) U. P. L. B. E. C. 414].
5. A large number of petitions by government servants are coming up before this Court challenging transfer orders and the time has now come when this subject has to be dealt with comprehensively.
6. The traditional principle has been that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with transfer order, as transfer is an exigency of service. However, this principle was made for and can only apply to, an
administration which is functioning normally and not when there is blatant and persistent abuse of the power of transfer.
7. It is regrettable that in this State (and perhaps in other State too) transfer appears to have become an industry. Government servants are often treated like shuttle-cocks, to be banged and battered around frequently without any thought of the effect this is having on their morale and on the administration:
8. To give an example, from March 1991 to March 1997, i. e. in 6 years, there have been 16 Senior Superintendents Police in Allahabad as stated below: -
1. Sri R. K. Bhatia 28-3-91 to 3-7-91 2. Sri O. P. S. Malik 5-7-91 to 2-4-92 3. Sri Manoj Kumar 2-4-92 to 21-4-93 4. Sri R. K. Tfewari 24-4-93 to 31-12-93 5. Dr. Kashmir Singh 31-12-93 to 28-1-94 6. Sri Premnath Pathak 28-1-94 to 8-6-94 7. Anand Prakash Maheshwari 8-6-94 to 13-9-94 8. Sri Satish Chandra Yadav 14-9-94 to 7-6-95 9. Sri Subesh Kumar Singh 8-6-95 to 8-6-95
10. Sri Sulkhan Singh 9-6-95 to 27-8-95 11. Sri R. R. Bhatnagar 28-8-95 to 21-9-95 12. Sri Ranjan Dwivedi 22-9-95 to 29-12-95 13. Sri Rajni Kant Mishra 30-12-95 to 15-8-96 14. Sri Satendra Kumar Garg 16-8-96 to 20-2-97 15. Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh 20-2-97 to 26-3-97 16. Sri Subesh Kumar Singh 28-2-97 to
9. The above figures show that some S. S. Ps. lasted in Allahabad for only a month or two, while one lasted for only 24 hours.
10. Similar would be the position in other districts in
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
