Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 460
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, CJ
MOKSEDUR RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 5 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) 396 / 2023
Mr. S.K.Hassan, Adv., Ms. M.Rahman, Adv., Mr. N.Syngkon, GA, Mr. J.N.Rynjah, GA, Mr. S.A.Shiekh, Adv.
The court emphasized that transfer orders must be justified and not arbitrary, affirming that employees do not have a vested right to transfer.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer of Employees - The petitioner challenged a series of transfer orders asserting they were arbitrary and lacked reasoning. The court examined the sequence of events surrounding the transfer and found no justification for the actions taken by the respondents. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 8)
(B) Right to Transfer - It is established that no employee has a vested right or fundamental right to transfer, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere in transfer matters unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was transferred on 31-03-2023 but faced a series of conflicting orders regarding the transfer, leading to confusion about his posting. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation of the transfer order to be arbitrary and lacking justification, quashing the last order and directing the implementation of the original transfer. (Paras 8)
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer orders were arbitrary and whether the respondents provided adequate reasoning for their actions. (Paras 6, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sequence of transfer orders lacked sound reasoning and was arbitrary, emphasizing that administrative decisions must be justified. (Paras 7, 8)
Result: Writ petition allowed and transfer order directed to be implemented.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with a series of orders with regard to his transfer and posting has by way of the instant writ petition questioned the actions of the respondents and it is asserted that the orders passed are bereft of any reason and was based on totally extraneous considerations.
2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner by the order dated 31-03- 2023, issued by the respondent No. 2 as part of a routine transfer of Agricultural Inspectors, was transferred from the District Agricultural Office at Tura to the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Office at Dadenggre, to the post held by the respondent No. 6. However, the order of transfer was kept in abeyance as far as the petitioner was concerned by an order dated 03-04-2023, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereas, for the other Officers named in the routine transfer order dated 31-03-2023, no such orders were passed. Thereafter, by an order dated 16-11-2023, the respondent No. 2 withdrew the order dated 03-04-2023 keeping the transfer of the petitioner in abeyance, after which the petitioner as per the materials on record had joined to his new place of posting on 21-11-2023. However, by another order dated 22-11-2023, the respondent No. 2 then withdrew the order dated 16-11-2023, whereby the stay of the transfer of the writ petitioner that had been kept in abeyance had been withdrawn, which had resulted in the writ petitioner serving in the original place of posting i.e.,Garobadha A.D.O. Circle inspite of the routine transfer dated 31-03-2023.
3. Mr. S.K.Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in firstly, transferring the writ petitioner, then keeping the same in abeyance, withdrawing the stay order, and again cancelling the same is highly arbitrary and without any reasons being ascribed. He submits that the action of the respondents being totally alien to the normal and due course of government business is liable to be interfered with, and the writ petitioner be allowed to join his new place of posting as per the order dated 31-03-2023. Reliance has been placed in this regard by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway & Anr. vrs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 in support of his case.
4. Mr. N.Syngkon, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-5 has submitted that the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 was due to administrative exigencies and also due to the fact that certain task of seed distribution were yet to be completed. It is further submitted that the last order keeping in abeyance the transfer of the writ petitioner, was also due to the fact that the respondent No. 6 had made an appeal as he was on the verge of retirement and had to look after his aged parents. In support of his submissions, learned GA has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, wherein he submits that the Supreme Court has held that no employee can assert a vested right or a fundamental right to transfer.
5. Mr. S.A.Shiekh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that he is on the verge of retirement and is due to retire on 31-01-2026 and as such, had filed a representation before the respondents for consideration which was allowed in view of these genuine grounds. He further submits that it is a principle of law that an employee does not have a fundamental right to be posted at a place of his choice and that it is only the official respondent who has the authority to decide as to the posting of any employee thereof. He further submits that the petitioner to the proposed place of posting i.e., Dadenggre, had already served for 25 years therein and as such, deserves no further consideration. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel in the case of N.K.Singh vrs. Union of India & Ors.
