IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Rahul Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Supdt. of Police, District Ratlam and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 14443 of 2019
Decided On : 19-02-2021
Transfer - Personal Inconvenience - Circular dated 11.08.2005 - Class-3 post - Inter-district transfer - Administrative Grounds
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable, was transferred from district Ratlam to district Burhanpur, challenging the order on the grounds of personal inconvenience due to his sister's illness and lack of direct train connectivity to the treatment center.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's transfer was permissible as per the Circular dated 11.08.2005 and that the transfer order was issued on administrative grounds, not alleging any malafide or violation of service conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer order could be challenged solely on the ground of personal inconvenience, and whether the petitioner's class-3 post allowed for inter-district transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on precedents such as Union of India v. Janardan Debanath, Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh, emphasizing that transfer is an essential condition of service and that courts should not interfere unless the order is mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the transfer order.
ORDER :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2019 whereby he has been transferred from district Ratlam to district Burhanpur.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the district police Ratlam vide order dated 28.09.2015 on compassionate ground and since then the petitioner is posted in the district Ratlam. For the first time vide order dated 4.7.2019 is being transferred from Ratlam to Burhanpur. The petitioner is assailing the impugned order mainly on the ground of personal inconvenience. According to the petitioner, his younger sister is suffering from illness and taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh. There is a direct train from Ratlam to Chandigarh and there is no direct connectivity from Burhanpur to Chandigarh by train, therefore, it would be very difficult for him to take him to Chandigarh for treatment. According to him, his mother is also quite aged and dependent on him. The petitioner sought permission to meet DG (Administration) Police Headquarter in order to put forth his personal inconvenience. He submitted a representation dated 08.07.2019 and thereafter he filed the present writ petition before this Court. At the time of hearing on admission counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner is a class-IV employee and has been transferred out of district which is not permissible, therefore, this Court has stayed the transfer order.
3. Now the respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the petitioner is working as a Constable which is a class-3 post and he has obtained the interim order by pleading the wrong fact, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the interference by the High Court in transfer matter purely on the ground of personal inconvenience is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various judgments. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is working in the district Ratlam and for the first time, he has been transferred. Not only the petitioner but also as many as the number of Constables have been transferred to various places.
4. Shri Bhatjiwala submits that the police headquarter has issued a Circular dated 11.08.2005. Although the same is on record but according to which in the case of compassionate appointment the condition of posting in the home district has been relaxed. However, during arguments, Shri Bhatjiwala admits that the petitioner is holding a class-3 post and the inter-district transfer is permissible.
5. In the said Circular there is a condition No. 1(b) also and according to which after completion of 5 years after the date of appointment in a district in which police personal was appointed can be transferred and so far the posting in the home district is concerned that clause 3 permits a posting of the compassionate appointee in the home district but there is no bar of transferring him out of the district that too after 15 years of service.
6. The petitioner is assailing the transfer order only on the ground of personal inconvenience that his younger sister is dependent on him and taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh. Burhanpur is also on the main rail line from the southern part of the country to Delhi. There are various trains from Burhanpur to Delhi and from Delhi he can go Chandigarh. The petitioner is not alleging any malafide or violation of any rules and service condition in his transfer order. The petitioner has remained more than 15 years in one place, therefore, the transfer order issued on the administrative ground is not liable to be interfered with.
7. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Janardan Debanath and Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows:
Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 15 SCC 178
State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another (2010) 13 SCC 306
Transfer of government employees is an essential condition of service and should not be interfered with unless mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer is an incident of service, and a public servant has no vested right to seek transfer to a location of his choice. The courts should n....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer of an employee is an administrative decision and should not be interfered with unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or....
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a place of their choice and can be transferred in administrative exigencies, and the courts should not interfere with transfer orders made....
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are inherent to service unless proven otherwise.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are inherent to service unless proven otherwise.
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.