Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Bobby Laishram, S/o L. Sharatchandra of Sagolband Tera Lukhram Leirak Machin - Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) - Respondent
WP(C) No. 368 of 2020
Decided on : 23-12-2021
Service matter - Appointment as Pharmacist and posted at PHSC Khubung Khulen - Transfer and posting order - Seeking to quash impugned transfer and posting order issued by second respondent in respect of petitioner - Praying inter alia to review impugned transfer order in respect of petitioner, but the same has not been considered by the official respondents - Petitioner and others were initially appointed in Health Department, Manipur as Pharmacists temporarily on regular basis and posted at PHSC Khubung Khulen - After appointment as Pharmacist and posted at PHSC Khubung Khulen, petitioner has been transferred and posted at PHSC, Somtal, Tengnoupal District and thereafter, by order issued by second respondent, petitioner was transferred and posted - Further case of petitioner is that to utter shock and surprise, vide impugned order petitioner was transferred and posted at DMO, Tamenglong even not completed two years and 3 months at CHC, Nambol and also in violation of the order of the Joint Secretary (Health and Family Welfare)
Finding of the Court :
Admittedly, the place of posting of a Government employee cannot be at desire and choice of employee and it is within the purview of the competent authorities for administrative convenience in public interest - Admittedly, petitioner was serving as Pharmacist (Allo) in Medical Directorate, Government of Manipur and he is duty bound to do healthcare services towards public which has nowadays become a prime consideration to combat Covid-19 pandemic as well as the exigency of service - Court finds no discrimination in present transfer. Further, this Court is of the view that transfer and posting of petitioner has been made only after examination of all aspects and thus, no policy and/or any statutory rule has been violated by the second respondent while issuing the impugned transfer order and therefore, no judicial review is warranted - Power of judicial review is available only on two counts, namely, where the posting is based on mala fide exercise of power or which is made in violation of any statutory provisions - It is well settled that matters of transfers are best left to discretion of competent authority and should not be tinkered with, in the absence of a demonstrable violation of statutory rules, or an instance of mala fide on part of competent authority. In the case on hand, the respondent authorities have satisfactorily explained the reason for issuing transfer and posting order to petitioner.
Result : Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned transfer and posting order dated 15.5.2020 issued by the second respondent in respect of the petitioner and to consider and dispose of the representation dated 8.7.2020 submitted by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.3.2017, the petitioner and others were initially appointed in the Health Department, Manipur as Pharmacists temporarily on regular basis and posted at PHSC Khubung Khulen, Chandel District. After the appointment as Pharmacist and posted at PHSC Khubung Khulen, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at PHSC, Somtal, Tengnoupal District and thereafter, by the order dated 01.2.2018, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner was transferred and posted at CHC, Nambol, Bishnupur District. Further case of the petitioner is that to the utter shock and surprise, vide impugned order dated 15.5.2020, the petitioner was transferred and posted at DMO, Tamenglong even not completed two years and 3 months at CHC, Nambol and also in violation of the order of the Joint Secretary (Health and Family Welfare). Manipur dated 25.7.2007.
3. According to the petitioner, the new place of posting where the petitioner was supposed to work, has no staff quarters and no transportation from location of the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that a similarly situated person namely TD Ahar Chiru, who was working as Female Health Worker with the petitioner, had challenged the transfer order dated 19.6.2020 as the same has full of material irregularities in W.P. (C) No. 312 of 2020. By the order dated 25.6.2020, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court whereby directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 23.6.2020 submitted by the petitioner therein within a period of four weeks. In the said writ petition, the Court has also ordered that pending disposal of the representation, the petitioner therein should be allowed to continue at her present place of posting. Stating all these facts, the petitioner submitted a representation on 8.7.2020 praying inter alia to review the impugned transfer order in respect of the petitioner, but the same has not been considered by the official respondents. Hence, the writ petition.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit stating that the transfer order dated 15.5.2020 was issued by the second respondent in exigencies of service in view of combating and controlling Covid-19 pandemic and the transfer order was issued for the purpose of administrative convenience which may not be interfered with by the Court. It is stated that pursuant to the impugned transfer order, the third respondent has joined the new place of posting and there is no vacancy other than the posting given to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has not yet joined and complied with the impugned order. It is stated that the order dated 25.7.2007 referred by the petitioner has no application in the present case as the transfer policy dated 25.7.2007 has already been superseded by various subsequent orders. The petitioner has been posted at the same place of posting for more than three years. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2020 cannot be equated with that of the petitioner herein. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Assailing the impugned transfer and posting order, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer order has not complied the transfer policy dated 25.7.2007 and is thus bias, malafide, arbitrary and improper and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside as far as the petitioner is concerned. He would submit that the impugned transfer order dated 15.5.2020 was issued not only in violation of various Office Memorandums, but also the same was issued with an intention to cause harassment to the petitioner. Further, the impugned transfer order was iss
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Transfer orders based on administrative discretion cannot be challenged unless violating statutory rules or showing mala fides.
Transfer orders in public service are subject to statutory guidelines, but courts refrain from interfering unless allegations of mala fides are substantiated or statutory violations are clear.
The court emphasized that transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons should not be interfered with unless they violate any mandatory statutory rule or are made on the grou....
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
