Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, J.
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Poresh Kumar Nath - Respondent
WA No. 24 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2022
Transfer - Employee Transfer - Article 226 of the Constitution - Service Conditions, Judicial Review - [Article 226, Service Conditions]
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the challenge to an order of transfer of an employee from Guwahati to Arunachal Pradesh. The employer's authority to transfer an employee was discussed, along with the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was within the employer's authority and that the high tests required for the court to intervene were not met. The court also emphasized the importance of better administration and the employer's discretion in transferring an employee.
Issues: The issues included the employer's authority to transfer an employee, judicial review under Article 226, breach of service conditions, and the proximity of events leading to the transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless there is a case of manifest arbitrariness or patent unfairness, the court would be slow to intervene in an employee transfer. The employer's discretion for better administration and the legality of the transfer in accordance with service conditions were key factors in the decision.
Final Decision: The judgment and order impugned were set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner was directed to join the new place of posting to receive salary from a specified date.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal is directed against an order of May 12, 2022 by which the first respondent's writ petition challenging his order of transfer has been allowed and the order of transfer dated November 26, 2021 has been set aside.
2. At the outset it must be observed that for a successful challenge to an order of transfer, an extraordinary case has to be made out and unless the high tests are met, the employer's authority to transfer an employee cannot be interfered with. Even if the transfer is in breach of the applicable guidelines, once it appears to the Court that the employer applied its mind and took a conscious decision for administrative exigencies, the Court would be slow to intervene unless a case of manifest arbitrariness or patent unfairness is clearly established.
3. Three grounds are evident from the judgment and order impugned, in justification of what impelled the writ court to interfere. The writ court perceived that there was no administrative reason for the employer to have transferred the first respondent herein from his Guwahati posting to Arunachal Pradesh. Further, the writ court took notice of the fact that the writ petitioner had indulged in trade union activities despite being an officer and this earned him the wrath of his seniors. Finally, the writ court found that there was no urgent need to justify the transfer order of November 26, 2021 to move the writ petitioner out of an assignment on which he had been sent to Mawsynram only earlier in November, 2021.
4. It appears that several needless issues were raised by the appellant employer before the writ court. In course of such irrelevant matters being canvassed hopelessly, the substance of the writ petition was lost as the endeavour on the part of the appellant herein was more to ensure that the Court did not entertain the writ petition rather than maintain that it was necessary for better administration to transfer the writ petitioner to the new project site in Arunachal Pradesh. There is no dispute that the appellant is an authority answering to that description in Article 12 of the Constitution. Notwithstanding such position, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant herein before the writ court that in a matter pertaining to the service conditions of the employees of a statutory authority, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was not available. The point had to be urged to be completely thrown out, particularly since there is no dispute that the appellant herein, in its constitution and its functioning, would be recognised as a State or other authority within the meaning of the relevant expression in Article 12 of the Constitution.
5. In the case of private bodies which discharge public functions, ordinarily, the extent of judicial review would be limited to the area of public duty discharged by such private body. There are other tests, including the test pertaining to all pervasive control of the State or the financial control of any government over the relevant body. Even in such cases, when the status of the employer may not be that of an authority but the employer is otherwise engaged in discharge of public duties, the service conditions and disputes pertaining to the employees of such body may not be carried to a writ court. However, in the present case, the very nature of the constitution of the appellant herein was such that it was amenable to every aspect of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. On such count, the opinion of the writ court cannot be faulted.
6. The other argument which was put forward on behalf of the appellant before the writ court was that no mandamus ought to be issued pertaining to a contract of service. Again, such aspect is adroitly dealt with in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to say that when the challenge in the writ petition was to the perceived arbitrary and capricious conduct of the State or an authority, the writ court had suff
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the employer's discretion for better administration in employee transfers, and the limited scope of judicial review under Arti....
The employer's administrative reasoning for a transfer holds overriding priority, and transfers cannot be stopped on flimsy grounds. The Court should refrain from interfering in transfer matters unle....
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Employees do not possess a right to remain at a specific posting, and transfer orders are subject to the employer's discretion unless proven otherwise.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are valid unless proven to be made in mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a place of their choice, and courts are reluctant to interfere with transfers unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or mala ....
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
