IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Laishram Badal Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 524 of 2022 with MC(WP(C)No.276 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Transfer Order - Government Servant - Notification dated 12.5.2022 - Clause III(vii), Clause III(viii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged a transfer order issued close to his retirement, contending that it violated the conditions laid down in the Notification dated 12.5.2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order contravened the notification by transferring the petitioner to a far-off place during the fag end of his career, in violation of the provisions regarding posting in the home district and the timing of transfers.
Issues: Violation of transfer policy, applicability of the Notification dated 12.5.2022, justification for the transfer order
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer order violated the transfer policy and the notification, and the judgment cited by the second respondent was not applicable as it did not consider the notification dated 12.5.2022.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned transfer order and dismissed the application filed by the second respondent, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Impugning the transfer and posting order dated 7.7.2022 issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as under:
According to the petitioner, he joined service as Lecturer in Higher Secondary School, Government of Manipur, pursuant to the order dated 26.10.1988. Being an incident of service, it is stated that the petitioner always complied with the transfer and posting orders issued time and again. The petitioner was promoted as Vice Principal vide proceedings dated 30.10.2018 and was further promoted as Principal vide proceedings dated 8.3.2019. The petitioner was subjected to regular transfers while he was holding various cadres. The petitioner was working at Nambol Higher Secondary School pursuant to the transfer order dated 20.7.2019. When things stood thus, the petitioner was served with a transfer order dated 7.7.2022, transferring him to Vungzagen Higher Secondary School, Churachandpur and in his place the second respondent was posted. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The main plank of the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 7.7.2022 has been passed in contravention of the Notification dated 12.5.2022 in supersession of the earlier Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017 laying down certain conditions to regulate the transfer and posting of government servants. To fortify the said submission, a reference of Clause III(vii) of the said notification was made, which contemplates that two years before the retirement, the official may be posted at the Home District, but in the case on hand such consideration was never made. That apart, as per Clause III (viii) of the notification, the transfers should normally be effected only in the month of April/May, but the impugned transfer order is passed in the month of July.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is at the fag end of his career and is due to retire on 28.2.2023. Thus, the petitioner has about 7 months of service left and by virtue of the impugned order, he is posted at a far off place only to accommodate the second respondent. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.7.2022.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent justified the transfer order and submitted that transfer is an incident of service and the writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be slow to interfere with such orders.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, who has been posted to the place held by the petitioner, justified the transfer order and further filed M.C.No.276 of 2022, to vacate the interim order dated 12.7.2022 passed by this court. To buttress his argument that a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court dated 22.12.2021 in W.P. (C) No.854 of 2021.
7. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record.
8. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is apposite to refer to the relevant conditions of the 'Policy for transfer and posting of government employees of the State of Manipur' issued by the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, vide notification dated 12.5.2022:
'III. General Conditions:
...
(vii) As far as possible, officials may be posted at their Home District, if the Official so chooses, 2 (two) years before their retirement so as to facilitate ease in processing pension matter.
(viii) Transfers shall normally be effected in the month of April/May after the financial year is over so that disruption of work is minimal.
...'
9. The notification dated 12.5.2022 emphatically states that it is issued in supersession of the earlier policy notified on 5.12.2017. It is beyond any demur that the notification dated 12.5.2022 is governing the transfer and postings of government servants.
10. In the case on h
The central legal point established is that transfer orders must adhere to the relevant transfer policy and notifications, and general propositions relating to challenge to a transfer order may not a....
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....
A government servant holding a transferable post, neither holds a fundamental nor legal right to remain posted at one place or other.
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.
Transfer of an employee is an exigency of service and should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.
Transfer orders within government service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven malafide or in violation of statutory provisions.
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 must be made based on administrative necessity and public interest, and cannot be influenced by political pressure or arbitrary decisions.
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.