Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
M.Sikkandar Basha vs The Director General Of Police on 11 August, 2011 cites

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

In the instance case, we are unable to find that there are sufficient materials from which a reasonable inference of malice in fact for passing the impugned order of transfer can be drawn. It is an admitted position that the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister had differences of opinion on a number of sensitive matters. If on that score, the Cabinet and the Chief Minister had taken a decision to relieve the appellant from the post of Chief Secretary and post a very senior officer of their confidence to the post of Chief Secretary, it cannot be held that such decision is per se illegal or beyond the administrative authority. The position in this regard has been well explained in E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamilnadu, [1974] 4 SCC 3 by this Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

N.K. Singh vs Union Of India on 25 August, 1994

In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, [1994] 6 SCC 98 this Court reiterated that: (SCC p. 103, para 6) 6.  the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 512 - J S Verma - Full Document

Sri Abani Kanta Ray vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 13 October, 1995

16. The Supreme Court, subsequently, in Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp [4] SCC 169, has held that a transfer, which is an incident of service, is not to be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. In paragraph [10], it was observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 285 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993

17. A contention was raised by the petitioners that the transfer was opposed to the government guidelines. A similar question came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S.L.Abbas, [1993] 4 SCC 357, wherein it was held that the executive instructions regarding transfers are in the nature of guidelines and they do not have any statutory force and unless an order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of the statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it and the guidelines do not confer upon a government employee a legally enforceable right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document

S.Sevugan vs The Chief Educational Officer on 25 January, 2006

6. It is stated that though the impugned orders are said to have been passed on administrative grounds, they have really emanated from the false report sent by the second respondent and because of the orders of transfer 40 police personnel and their families, including the petitioners, have been dislocated. It is further stated that a transfer cannot be done by way of punishment and it cannot be resorted to based upon allegations or complaints, and since the impugned orders of transfer have been passed on administrative grounds, it attaches a stigma on the petitioners. It was contended that the transfer had violated the departmental circular issued by the Government in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 31.1.1992. It is also stated that this Court in S.Sevugan v. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, 2006 [2] CTC 468 has set aside a transfer in respect of an employee of the Education Department and the said view was also confirmed by subsequent Division Bench decisions. Under such circumstances, the orders of transfer are to be set aside by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Mrs. Shilpi Bose And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others on 19 November, 1990

In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4) 4. 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 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1352 - Full Document

Major General J.K. Bansal vs Union Of India And Others on 23 August, 2005

20. Further, the petitioners belong to the uniformed service and in matters of transfer, the Court cannot lightly interfere, as was held by the Supreme Court in relation to the members of the Armed Force vide judgment in Major General J.K.Bansal v. Union of India, [2005] 7 SCC 227. In paragraphs [11] and [12] of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 151 - G P Mathur - Full Document

National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001

11. Similar view has been taken in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, [2001] 8 SCC 574 wherein it has been held that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders, as though they were the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 711 - Full Document
1   2 Next