Amarjeet Singh Dagar Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (07 Mar 2022)
An employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place
The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, ('CAT') dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further prays for quashing and setting aside of the Office Order issued by the Respondent no. 2, transferring the Petitioner from New Delhi to Jaipur.
An employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place. The Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead, the affected party should approach the higher authorities in the concerned department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and/or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.
Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permitted only where the Court finds either the transfer order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the Authorities issuing the order were not competent to pass the same. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and must be left to the discretion of the Authorities concerned, which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation.
In his entire career, barring the period less than one year, the Petitioner has, in fact, remained posted in New Delhi for almost 28 years. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to claim that his transfer is bad merely because he was not allowed to complete a formal tenure posting of three years at New Delhi after his re-transfer from Shillong to New Delhi vide order. His transfer to New Delhi was in itself not a normal posting order and was passed before completion of his tenure at Shillong.
The present petition is against the order passed by the learned CAT. It is a settled law that this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the orders passed by the learned CAT. The power of judicial review must be exercised restrictively and on limited grounds. In the present case, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CAT that warrants any interference from this court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.
Tags : TRANSFER ORDER POWERS VALIDITY