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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Mishra, J.
Uday Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23687 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Neeraj Jain- Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Pramod Pandey- Government Advocate, for the Respondent

Transfer orders can only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances, such as mala fide exercise of power or violation of statutory provisions.

Headnote:

Transfer - Challenge to Transfer Order - State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, Union of India and Ors v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagawan (2001) 8 SCC 574, Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another (2004) 4 SCC 243, Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992)1 SCC 306, Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others ILR (2015) MP 255

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the transfer order on the grounds of frequent transfers without reason and personal inconvenience. The State opposed the prayer, citing administrative grounds for the transfer.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized that transfer of an employee is an inherent incident of the terms of appointment and a condition of service, and can only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances, such as mala fide exercise of power or violation of statutory provisions. The court directed the authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within 30 days.

Issues: Challenge to transfer order, administrative grounds for transfer, personal inconvenience

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various legal precedents to establish that transfer orders can only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances, and emphasized that employees have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, directing the authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within 30 days.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 05.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Dhhimroli, Janpad Panchayat Beena, District Sagar to Gram Panchayat Sesaisaji, Janpad Panchayat Banda, District Sagar.

2. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that he was transferred vide order dated 22.12.2021 from Gram Panchayt Besrakasoi, Nawgaon to Gram Panchayat Dhimroli. His name finds at serial no.21 in the aforesaid list and within a period of 9 months he has again been transferred vide impugned order from Gram Panchayat Dhhimroli to Gram Panchayat Sesaisaji, Janpad Panchayt Banda. It is stated that it is a frequent transfer of the petitioner without assigning any reason. It is submitted that a representation (Annexure P/3) has been filed showing personable inconvenience which is pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and as the transfer is a service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order. Virtually, no ground has been raised except the personal inconvenience which would be caused to the petitioner. As per settled legal proposition of law, the transfer order can be interfered only in exception circumstances as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held as under :

    "7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.

    8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even

            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
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top