2018 (10) TMI 1831 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - validity of order of transfer of employees - services of the petitioner has been transferred from district Durg to district Surajpur - HELD THAT - The issue of transfer and posting of an employee, whose services, is transferable, has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and the various High Courts of this country and by now which stands settled by a catena of decisions, that it is entirely upon the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant has to be transferred. It has also been repeatedly held by the Courts that transfer is not only an incident to service, but is also an essential conditions of service - The transferable employee cannot claim as a matter of right nor does he have a vested right to work at a particular place and the Courts cannot interfere with a transfer and posting made on administrative grounds or even if it is made in public interest. Transferring of an employee does not affect any of his legal rights nor does it affect the conditions of service in any manner and so far as the employee is concerned, he can have no choice in the matter and many a times it is done for the efficiency in the public administration. This Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the order of transfer, which has been made on the administrative ground - Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to transfer order as punitive, Allegation of victimization for sincere efforts, Allegation of mala fide intention in transfer, Administrative exigency in transfer, Legal validity of transfer order, Judicial precedents on transfer of employees.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the transfer order, claiming it was punitive and made with mala fide intentions. The petitioner alleged victimization for sincere efforts in conducting inquiries as directed by higher authorities. The petitioner argued that being the only one transferred indicated mala fide intentions and lack of administrative exigency for the transfer.

2. The petitioner's counsel referred to correspondences, documents, and judgments like Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Others 2009 (2) SCC 592 to support the contention of victimization and mala fide intentions in the transfer order. However, the court noted that apart from the petitioner's averments, no strong material was presented to support these claims.

3. The court highlighted that transfer is an incident to services for transferable employees, subject to the employer's discretion. It emphasized that transfer decisions are administrative and can be made in public interest or for efficiency in public administration. The court cited various judgments, including "Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar" and "Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas," to support the principle that employees do not have a vested right to work at a particular place.

4. Considering the facts and legal principles, the court found no strong case for interference with the transfer order based on administrative grounds. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the transfer did not violate the petitioner's legal rights or conditions of service. The decision was in line with established legal precedents regarding transfer and posting of employees.