Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Mayengbam Sanahal Meetei - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 653 of 2022 with MC(WP(C)) No. 293 of 2022
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Transfer - Government Employee - [Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Manipur] - [No specific Act-Section referenced] - The court considered the frequent transfer of the petitioner and the violation of transfer policy and guidelines by the respondent authorities. The impugned order was set aside as it amounted to frequent transfer, and the interim order was made absolute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, filed a writ petition to quash an order and direct the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation. The petitioner alleged frequent arbitrary transfers and non-consideration of his representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order violated the transfer policy and guidelines, and the frequent transfers were made without justifiable reasons. The court also noted the lack of consideration of the petitioner's representation.
Issues: The issues involved frequent arbitrary transfers, non-consideration of the petitioner's representation, and violation of transfer policy and guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was set aside as it amounted to frequent transfer and violated the transfer policy and guidelines. The court also emphasized that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, the interim order was made absolute, and the third respondent's application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 8.8.2022 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 9.8.2022 by issuing a reasoned speaking order.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Section Officer under Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Manipur on contract basis on 30.12.2009 and thereafter, he was posted at Khengjoy T.D. Block on 30.12.2009. On 31.12.2016, the second respondent regularised the services of 89 employees, including the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Kakching to Tengnoupal T.D. Block. Then from Tengnoupal T.D. Block to Kakching C.D. Block and the same was cancelled on 1.7.2019.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that on 16.6.2022, the second respondent issued transfer order transferring the petitioner and posted at Tousem T.D. Block and just after 20 days of the transfer order dated 16.6.2022, the second respondent issued another transfer order dated 8.7.2022 thereby transferring the petitioner and posted at Kakching C.D. Block without any reason. While so, to his utter shock and surprise, by the impugned order dated 8.8.2022, the second respondent arbitrarily and in total violation of the guidelines regulating the transfer and posting of Government employees under the State Government stayed and retained the petitioner in his original place of posting with immediate effect and until further orders. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation on 9.8.2022 praying to review/cancel the impugned order dated 8.8.2022 and the said representation has not been considered till date.
4. The official respondents 1 and 2 have not filed affidavit-inopposition to the writ petition.
5. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, stating that considering the long posting of the third respondent for about 3 years in another District and also after considering the other aspects of posting of the petitioner for about 3 years, the petitioner has been retained at Tousem T.D. Block and he was retained at Kakching C.D. Block by the impugned order and there are no valid ground to set aside the impugned order. Further, the representation of the petitioner has no merit to be disposed of or passed any order in favour of him. It is stated that the petitioner is trying to take full advantage causing himself to be posted at his home place/home District, whereas the third respondent has not been posted in his home District till now or he has not been posted for more than 3 years in Kakching C.D. Block.
6. Assailing the impugned order dated 8.8.2022, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not mention any plausible and adequate reason for staying the order dated 8.7.2022 and therefore, the same is highly unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind. In fact, the impugned order was issued under the heavy pressure of the Minister/MLA under the undue pressure of the third respondent.
7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been frequently transferred from one place of posting to another like shuttle cock by the authorities without any cogent reason, conceivable and justifiable reason and with the mere intention to cause harassment to him with malafide intention. The impugned order was issued by the second respondent just after 29 days of order dated 8.7.2022, which is in total violation of the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of P&AR, Government of Manipur and also in violation of the transfer policy.
8. The learned senior counsel urged that aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 9.8.2022 praying to review the impugned order. Despite receipt of the said representation, the same has not been considered till date and therefore, a direction may be issued
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....
The court emphasized that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provision or issued by an incompetent pe....
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a....
Transfer orders in public service are valid unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
Administrative transfers are within the authority's discretion, and employees have no vested right to remain posted at a specific location. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are esse....
The transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Co....
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
