Delhi High Court
R.S. Yadav vs V.S.N.L. And Anr. on 22 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)237, 105(2003)DLT95, 2003(68)DRJ641, 2004(1)SLJ59(DELHI)
Author: Mukundakam Sharma
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma
JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1.The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of transfer dated 22.10.2001 as also the release order dated 17.1.2002. By issuing the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2001, the respondent sought to transfer the petitioner from New Delhi to Kanpur. By the order dated 17.1.2002, the petitioner was released from New Delhi with instructions to him to report for duty at Kanpur. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court. While issuing notice on the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order staying the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2002, which is operating till today. The petitioner was transferred to Delhi from Dehradoon as Senior Manager on 17.1.1996. On 1.4.1996, while the petitioner was working at New Delhi, he was promoted from the post of Senior Manager to the post of Deputy General Manager. The petitioner, however, at that relevant time, when he was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager, was not transferred and was retained in New Delhi. The respondent, however, issued the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2001 transferring the petitioner from New Delhi to Kanpur. The petitioner submitted a request to the respondent for his retention in New Delhi sector, which was considered by the respondent and by order dated 17.1.2002 the aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected and he was released from New Delhi in order to enable him to join duties at Kanpur.
2.By filing the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order of transfer on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent. Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the aforesaid transfer policy, a copy of which is placed on record. Counsel particularly relied upon the provisions of paragraph 7(k), which provides that an employee would not be disturbed with a transfer during the last 3 years of his service and to the extent possible would be posted at the station of his choice.
3.Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the aforesaid transfer policy is issued by the respondent for the purpose of guidance and the same is not enforceable. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner is in Delhi for about five years and, therefore, he has a transfer liability and that he was directed to be posted at Kanpur in the administrative exigencies of service.
4.I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. There cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner has a transfer liability. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the aforesaid order of transfer was issued he had less than three years of service left before superannuation and, therefore, even according to the own policy of the respondent he should not have been transferred out.
5.The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. H.N. Kirtania had occasion to consider a similar point and the Supreme Court in that regard observed as under:
"After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties we do not find any valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Government. The respondent being a Central Government employee held a transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to the other in the country; he has no legal right to insist for his posting at Calcutta or at any other place of his choice. We do not approve of the cavalier manner in which the impugned orders have been issued without considering the correct legal position. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala fides. There was no good ground for interfering with the respondent's transfer.
6.It is a settled position of law that a transfer order, which is passed by the respondent in the administrative exigencies of service should be interfered with by the Court only when it is found by the Court that the same is issued in violation of the statutory rules or the order is passed mala fide. No mala fide is alleged in the present writ petition. Therefore, the only aspect to be scrutinised here is whether or not the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory rules. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others (1991) 2 Supp. 659. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed as follows"
"In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order and instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
7.In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas , the Supreme Court held thus:
"Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration."
8.The transfer order, which is passed in the present petition, does not only relate to the transfer of the petitioner but also involves several other persons and it is in the nature of a general order of chain transfer. Therefore, no mala fide is rightly alleged by the petitioner. The order also apparently was passed in the administrative exigencies of service. There is no statutory violation committed by the respondent in issuing the aforesaid order of transfer. It is true that guidelines provide that a person should be allowed to be retained at one place within the last three years of his service. But the same is in the nature of a guidelines which has to be kept in mind by the administration. It is for the administration to decide applicability of the aforesaid guidelines in the exigencies of administration. When the respondent has decided that for the administrative exigencies of service, service of the petitioner could be best used and utilised by transferring him to Kanpur, in such matter the Court should not and cannot interfere as there is neither any mala fide nor any violation of the statutory rules in the present case. Therefore, the order of transfer issued by the respondent cannot be interfered with.
9.It is accordingly held that the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. After joining the post at Kanpur, it shall be open to the petitioner to submit a representation, which when filed shall be considered and the respondent shall pass necessary orders on the said representation, if any. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions.