Report on Lack of AC, Drinking Water and WiFi at DU Law Faculty Sought by Delhi High Court  ||  All. HC: DCP Pulled Up for Directing Further Investigation Without Leave of the Magistrate  ||  Kerala HC: Husband Acquitted u/s 304B IPC Can be Held Guilty u/s 498A IPC if Facts Permit  ||  Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023 Comes Into Effect From 10th June, 2024  ||  Karnataka HC: PIL Seeking Declaration that Temples are Not Public Authorities, Dismissed  ||  Bom. HC: Karan Johar Files Suit Against Makers of the Film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”  ||  Mad. HC: Bar Associations to Pay 15000 to 20,000 to Junior Lawyers Practicing in State  ||  Kerala High Court: E-Toilets to be Build for Flood Affected Tribal Families  ||  Amalgamation of Air Asia With Air India Express Approved by NCLT  ||  SC: Accused Refusing to Undergo Medical Examination Amounts to Non-Cooperation With Investigation    

Bimal Chandra Das Vs. The Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Gauhati) (08 Oct 2018)

A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice



In present matter, while the Petitioner was serving as Inspector and posted in the Armourer, Maligaon Headquarter, the Respondent No. 4 had issued order transferring the Petitioner from Maligaon Headquarter and posted him as Divisional Inspector/KIR under Katihar Division on administrative ground. Thereafter, by the order, the Petitioner was released from his duty so as to enable him to join at his new place of posting at Katihar. The aforesaid transfer order has been assailed by the Petitioner by filing the instant writ petition.

In present case, there is no dispute about the fact that, the writ Petitioner was elected as the General Secretary, AIRPFA in the month of March, 2014 for a term of 3 years. The term of the Petitioner in office has since expired. It is merely an order of transfer which was issued by taking note of the circumstances which were already within the knowledge of the Petitioner. There is neither any stigmatic observation made against the Petitioner nor is there any violation of the condition of his service resulting from the confidential report.

It is trite law that, transfer is an incident of service and the scope for interference with the order of transfer by the Writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The scope of judicial review by the High Court in such matters is limited to only such cases where the order of transfer has been issued in violation of statutory provisions or with a malafide intent of causing injury to the employee or when the same amounts to changing the conditions of service of the person concerned. Merely if because an order of transfer is issued in deviation of certain guidelines, that cannot by itself be sufficient ground for the Writ Court to declare the order as invalid in the absence of any malafide being established on the face of the record.

In the case of Rajendra Singh , the Supreme Court has held that, a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to other.

Merely because the authorities have carried out a discreet inquiry before reaching the conclusion leading to the transfer of the Petitioner, the transfer order cannot be termed as punitive nor can it be said to have cast a stigma upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner has already served at the same station i.e. Maligaon Headquarter at Guwahati for more than 8 years. As per the departmental guidelines in force, the normal tenure of posting at one place is 3 years and, therefore, since the Petitioner has completed 8 years at one place, there can be hardly any doubt about the fact that this is not a case of premature transfer. The Petitioner has completed his normal tenure long back and, therefore, was in any case due for transfer. No case is made out warranting interference with the transfer order. Consequently, the writ petition dismissed.

Relevant : Rajendra Singh etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/1341/2009


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved