Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Sujata Seleibam - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 674 of 2022
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Transfer Order - Challenge to Transfer Order - Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009, Transfer Policy 2021 - The court discussed the challenge to the transfer order based on the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 and the Transfer Policy 2021, highlighting the entitlement to spouse posting at the same station and the alleged violation of the transfer policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a transfer order and continue at her present place of posting, citing violation of the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 and the Transfer Policy 2021. The respondent authorities issued the transfer order after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier application for restoration of the transfer order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no arbitrariness in the issuance of the impugned transfer order after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier application. It held that the challenge based on the violation of spouse posting mandate and public interest was not sustainable, and the petitioner was duty-bound to obey the transfer order.
Issues: Challenge to transfer order based on violation of Office Memorandum and Transfer Policy, entitlement to spouse posting, and alleged violation of public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the transfer order was not sustainable as there was no arbitrariness in issuing the order after the dismissal of the earlier application. It also found no violation of the spouse posting mandate or public interest.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
1. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned transfer order dated 18.7.2022 and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at her present place of posting i.e. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bishnupur.
3. Heard Mr. O. Kiranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Samarjeet, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she was presently working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (English) in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bishnupur and is staying at her quarters inside the JNV, Bishnupur along with her minor daughter and husband. On 31.8.2017, the petitioner was transferred to JNV, Dhemaji, Assam. Challenging the said transfer order, she had filed O.A.No.042/00278 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati and pursuant to the interim order, her transfer was stayed. However, the OA was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution. After coming to know the dismissal of the OA, the petitioner had filed restoration application in MA.No.53/2022 and 54/2022 and the same are pending before the Tribunal. While so, taking advantage of the dismissal of the OA, the impugned order came to be issued, which is challenged in the writ petition.
5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. O. Kiranjit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer order as well as the relieving order dated 20.7.2022 are de hors the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 regarding spouse posting at the same station and that the petitioner and her husband, who was serving as Lecturer at the Roal Academy of Law, Oinam, Bishnupur are entitled to spouse posting at the same station at the present place of posting at JNV, Bishnupur or at a nearby station in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum. He submits that the act of the respondents in transferring and relieving from her present place of posting has displaced the petitioner and separated from her spouse and children in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 and also the Transfer Policy, 2021.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and her husband are undergoing IVF treatment since 2019 as per the advice of the Doctors. Further, under the ATD 2022, the petitioner can apply and can exercise her option of choosing station of her choice and, as such, she opted at JNV, Khumbong. However, the said request of the petitioner was not considered. Aggrieved by the impugned transfer order as well as the relieving order, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 11.8.2022 and the same has not been considered till date.
7. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner has not even been given a chance to redress her grievance against the impugned transfer order dated 18.7.2022 and that the act of the respondent authorities is totally arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, a prayer is made to quash the impugned transfer order and allow her to work in the present place of posting.
8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Samarjeet, the learned Sr. PCCG for the respondents submitted that challenging the transfer order dated 31.8.2017, the petitioner has filed OA before the Tribunal and due to non-prosecution, the said OA was dismissed for default on 23.7.2019 and that after passing the order dated 23.7.2019, the impugned order directing her to report for duty at the transferred place was issued. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness in issuing the impugned order. He submits that the restoration application, if any filed by the petitioner will not affect the impugned order. The claim of the petitioner that spouse posting at the same station has no basis. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
10.
The court emphasized the duty of the petitioner to obey the transfer order and found no violation of the spouse posting mandate or public interest.
The court upheld the transfer order and rejection of representation based on the interpretation of the correction order and government guidelines.
Transfer policies overridden by public interest and administrative exigency; spouse posting not absolute right.
The court affirmed that government employees have no inherent right to be posted at a specific location, and transfer decisions are primarily administrative, subject to limited judicial review.
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 based on administrative discretion cannot be challenged unless violating statutory rules or showing mala fides.
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....
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
