SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2

KERALA HIGH COURT
Chandrasekhara Menon, J
Gopalakrishna Iyer v. State
O. P. No. 2614 of 1981-F



Transfer orders must align with public interest and established norms; courts can intervene if government action is arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Transfer of Government employees - Transfer orders are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government, but courts may intervene in cases of mala fide exercise of power. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) Public Interest - A transfer not serving public interest or deviating from established norms can be quashed. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with substantive experience and qualifications, was transferred in violation of transfer norms to accommodate a less qualified junior colleague, raising questions of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.

Findings of Court:
The transfer order was arbitrary and lacking justification, thus violating established transfer principles.

Issues: Whether the transfer order was in violation of the established norms and justifiable in the interest of public service.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted that transfers must align with public interest and administrative convenience, striking down the arbitrary action taken in this case.

Result: The petition is allowed, and the transfer order is quashed.

1The petitioner is a postgraduate degree holder in Ophthalmology in the Directorate of Health Services, Kerala. He joined service on 16th September, 1965. He was sent for compulsory military service in 1966 where he served from 21st March, 1966 to 2nd December, 1969. He acquired Diploma (D.O.) in 1972 and postgraduate degree of N. S. in Ophthalmology in 1974. He was posted to E.S.I. Hospital, Pavithreswaram and Pappinisseri (1965-66) and Health Centre, Muhamma (1969-71) as an Eye Specialist in the Taluk Hospital, Shertallai from 7th November, 1973 to 16th February, 1977 and in the Taluk Hospital, Pathanamthitta from 17th February, 1977 to 31st May, 1980. Then he was transferred to the District Hospital, Trichur, as a Senior Ophthalmologist. This was his first District Hospital posting. He had an unblemished record of service to his credit. According to the norms of transfer of Government Medical Officers, he could have continued in the District Hospital, Trichur, at least for two years more. But he was transferred by an order, dated 20th May, 1981 served on him on 26th May, 1981 evidenced by Ext. P-1 to Perumbavoor. Out of ever 30 Doctors in the District Hospital, Trichur, only three including the petitioner were transferred from Trichur, the petitioner before completing three years of service. There were other Doctors who had completed over 10 years of service in the District Hospital. The petitioner avers that this transfer was apparently to provide for the 3rd respondent.

2The 3rd respondent joined regular service on 24th September, 1973 and has only completed less than eight years of service. He is ranked as No. 2060 in the gradation list, as against Rank No. 598 assigned to the petitioner, of Assistant Surgeons. He is only a Postgraduate Diploma holder and has no military service to his credit. The petitioner had to wait for about 15 years for a District Hospital posting. The 3rd respondent gets such a posting before completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner has 46 points in his favour for being given independent unit charge whereas the 3rd respondent had only 26 such points which is not sufficient ordinarily for a unit charge or a District Hospital posting. The petitioner's case, therefore, is that his transfer was in violation of the norms, governing transfers, without any extraordinary circumstance justifying such transfer and only to accommodate the 3rd respondent. In this petition petitioner prays that Ext. P1 order be set aside as being violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution and also prays for other consequential reliefs. The grounds urged are that Ext. P1 order of transfer is in violation of all known norms and ascertainable principles of conduct set up by the Government, that it is vitiated by extraneous considerations, unrelated to exigencies of administration and hence is vitiated by mala fides in law. In C.M.P. No. 9391 of 1981 this Court directed interim stay if the 3rd respondent had not taken charge in the Trichur Hospital. Thereafter, he filed C.M.P. No. 12025 of 1981 for an interim direction whereupon this Court directed the 2nd respondent to post the petitioner in the next available vacancy in the District Hospital, Trichur, pending disposal of the Original Petition. The petitioner again filed C.M.P. No. 16315 of 1981 to give directions to respondents 1 and 2 to post the petitioner back to the Trichur District Hospital where he had been working. No orders were passed on that. He again filed C.M.P. No. 19383 of 1981 for the same direction. There also no orders were passed. I understand that he has now been posted to Trichur but not to a place befitting his seniority, qualification and specialisation.

3In the counter filed by the 1st respondent State, the case of the petitioner is met as follows: The transfer of the petitioner as per Ext. P-1 order is in public interest, not actuated by mala fides and hence not liable to be quashed. The petitioner's case that he can be transferred from the Dis








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top