ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.
Rajendra Prasad SBrij Nath
Versus
Union of India
Special Appeal 262 of 2005
Decided On : 16 March 2005
Special Appeal 262 Of 2005
Transfer - Employee Transfer - [The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Transfer, Posting and Deputation) Rules, 1981] - Summary: The court discussed the employee transfer policy and the legal provisions related to the transfer of low paid employees and scheduled tribe employees. It highlighted that transfer is an essential condition of service and can be decided by the competent authority. The court emphasized that transfer policy does not create legal justifiable rights in the court of law and that the court cannot interfere with transfer/posting unless it is in contravention of statutory rules or passed on mala fides. The court also considered the issue of transfer in mid-academic session and the importance of administrative exigency in transfer decisions. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds for interference with the impugned judgment and order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a class IV employee, filed a writ petition against an order of transfer. The appellant argued that the transfer was not permissible under the transfer policy, and it adversely affected the education of his children. The respondents contended that the transfer was valid and that the appellant's daughter was not studying in Varanasi. The court considered the rival submissions and the record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, being an employee of the corporation, had not impleaded the corporation as a respondent, which should have led to the rejection of the writ petition. However, the court allowed the appellant to implead the corporation as a party. The court also emphasized that transfer is an essential condition of service and that the transfer policy does not create legal justifiable rights in the court of law. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds for interference with the impugned judgment and order.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the transfer under the transfer policy, the impact of the transfer on the appellant's children's education, and the allegations of mala fides against the higher authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer is an essential condition of service and that the transfer policy does not create legal justifiable rights in the court of law. The court emphasized that the court cannot interfere with transfer/posting unless it is in contravention of statutory rules or passed on mala fides. The court also considered the issue of transfer in mid-academic session and the importance of administrative exigency in transfer decisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds for interference with the impugned judgment and order.
( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2. 11. 2004 of the learned Judge disposing of the Writ Petition No. 46. 40 of 2004 filed by the petitioner against the order of transfer dated 11. 10. 2004 by directing that the petitioner will be permitted to remain in varanasi up to 31st May, 2005 considering the interest of children who are of the school going age in view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of his client.
( 2 ) SHRI M. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that petitioner-appellant is a class IV employee and he could bot be transferred in view of the transfer policy unless he has prayed in writing for transfer or he is being promoted; petitioner-appellant belongs to the scheduled Tribes and therefore, as per the Government Order contained in Annex. 2a, it was not permissible to transfer him; petitioner-appellant had been transferred in the mid academic session which had adversely affected the education of his children; transfer is because of mala fide of the higher authorities because of the fact that petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe candidate and other persons are having malice against him. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order of transfer is liable to be quashed and the judgment and order of the leaned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
( 3 ) ON the contrary, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, leaned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and the Corporation has not been impleaded as a party. Reliance placed by the petitioner-appellant on transfer policies is misconceived as these do not create any legal or justifiable right in Court; the certificate shows that his daughter is a student of Class X in Intermediate College Babusarai, Sant Ravi Dass nagar, Bhadohi and, therefore, his daughter is not studying in Varanasi, though his son is studying in Varanasi. More so, the said transfer policy merely provides that low paid employee should not normally be transferred, and similarly, the Government Orders in respect of the scheduled Tribes employees provides that as far as possible they may not be transferred unless a request is made by them or they are promoted. Petitioner-appellant had earlier been transferred from Rewa a Varanasi after serving at Rewa for 12 years but he did not raiser any grievance against the said order. Allegations of mala fides against the higher officers have been levelled without any sense of responsibility as no officer had been impleaded by name. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Affidavit accompanying Stay Application in the Special Appeal, allegations have been made of non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, for which he had filed the contempt proceedings and relief was granted to him. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, petitioner-appellant is an employee of the corporation which had not been impleaded as a respondent, and on that ground writ petition ought to have been rejected. In view of the judgement to the Honble Apex Court in The State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers syndicate Ltd. , Okara and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 669; Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern railway, New Delhi and Anr. AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief Conservator of Forests, government of A. P. v. Collector and Ors. , (2003) 3 SCC 472. However, as Shri Mishra prays that he may be given time to implead the Corporation as a party, the appeal is not to be rejected on this ground. In such an eventuality, the party can be impleaded even at the stage of the appeal as held by the Supreme Court in Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad, AIR 1987 SC 1970.
( 6 ) THE issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena
Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Anr.
Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad
Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani
Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shanker Lal and Ors.
Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.
Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Netai Bag and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Samant and Anr. v. Bombay Stock Exchange and Ors.
Jasvinder Singh and Ors. v. State and J and K and Ors.
Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta
Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam and Ors.
Referred to : The State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd., Okara and Anr.
Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector and Ors.
N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan
Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania
Dr. J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
I.K. Mishra v. Union of India and Ors.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Ors.
Kiran Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and Anr.
Rani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.