1992 (11) TMI 204 - SC - Central Excise

Whether there is any public interest involved in the transfer of the appellant as Joint Secretary? Held that - Clause 2(b) of the Fundamental Rules as amended by Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 1981 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Rules, the Governor may in public interest transfer a government servant to a post in another cadre or to an ex-cadre post. The order dated July 8, 1992 does not recite any public interest. We are also not in a position to discover from the other records available before us whether the transfer of the appellant was in public interest. In the absence of a counter-affidavit or even the relevant records, we are left with no option than to conclude that no public interest is involved. It cannot be gainsaid that transfer is a necessary concomitance of every service; but if such a transfer could be effected only on certain conditions, it is necessary to adhere to those conditions. In this case, the public interest being absent, the impugned order of transfer cannot be supported.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the dismissal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 24720/92 & 32100/92 regarding the promotion and transfer of the appellant.
2. Allegations of demotion and illegal appointments by the Transport Commissioner.
3. Challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Additional Transport Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Deputy Transport Commissioner, was promoted to Joint Secretary and later to Additional Transport Commissioner. However, he was transferred back to Joint Secretary, which was challenged as demotion. The High Court upheld the transfer, citing parity of pay and the Governor's power to transfer in public interest. The appellant argued lack of public interest in the transfer. The Supreme Court found no public interest in the transfer and set aside the High Court's decision, reinstating the appellant as Additional Transport Commissioner due to his impending retirement.

2. The appellant alleged pressure from the Transport Commissioner for illegal appointments, leading to his transfer. The Court noted the absence of public interest in the transfer and emphasized the necessity of adhering to conditions for transfers. The Court set aside the transfer order, considering the appellant's imminent retirement and lack of public interest.

3. The challenge to respondent No. 4's appointment as Additional Transport Commissioner was not adjudicated due to the appellant's preference to retain his position. The Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to implement the order and accommodate respondent No. 4 appropriately. The appeals were allowed, reinstating the appellant as Additional Transport Commissioner and leaving the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the government's discretion.