MOHD. MASOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 72

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

MOHD. MASOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

MOHD. MASOOD AHMAD \ v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS. SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 [C. K. THAKKERAND MARKANDEYKATJU,JJ. ) Service Law: -4-- Transfer-Transfer ofpublic servant. from one place to another- Allegation that transfer order at the instance ofMLA-lnterference with-Held: Transfer is an exigency ofservice and is an administrative decision-Public servant was on transferable post--Transfer order at the instance ofMLA by itselfwould not vitiate the transfer order-It depends on the facts ofthe case-Thus, High Court rightly did not interfere with the transfer order-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article ,__ 226. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the High Court_! :ightly dismissed the Writ Petition filed by appellant-Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad challenging his transfer order from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1.

Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. [Para 4] [74-A-B] B. Varadha Rao v. State ofKarnataka, AIR (1986) SC 1955, Shi/pi Bose v. State ofBihar, AIR (1991) SC 532, Union ofIndia v. NP. Thomas, AIR (1993) SC 1605 and Union oflndiav. S. L. Abbas, AIR > (1993) SC 2444, relied on. State ofPunjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR (1993) SC 2486, Abani Kanta Rayv. State ofOrissa, (1995] Supp. 4SCC169, Rajendra Rao v. Union ofIndia, [1993] 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, [2001] 8 SCC 574, State Bank ofIndia v. Anjan Sanyal, [2001] 5 SCC 508, Vijay Pal Singh v. State ofUP. , (1997) 3 ESC 1668 and Onkarnath Tiwari v. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, UP. Lucknow, (1997) 3 ESC 1866, referred to. 1. 2.

Even if the allegation of the appellant that he was transferred on the recommendation ofan MLA is correct, that by itselfwould not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance ofan M. P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances ofan individual case. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned transfer order. [Para 8] [75-E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4360 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 08. 07. 2005 ofthe High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1110 (SIB) of2005. Dinesh Kumar Garg and V. K. Biju for the Appellant. S. B. Upadhyay, Chandan Ramamurthi, Sandeep Singh, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, G.

Venketesh Rao, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Shubra and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 8. 7. 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1110 (SIB) of2005. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. \---~ 4. The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar i Palika Parishad MUZi;tffamagar, had in his writ petition challenged his transfer by the State Government by order dated 21. 6. 2005 as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mawana, District Meerut. Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency ofservice and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases.

As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency ofservice vide B. Varadha Rao v. State ofKarnataka, AIR (1986) SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State ofBihar, AIR +- (1991) SC 532, Union ofIndia v. NP. Thomas, AIR (1993) SC 1605, Union ofIndia v. S. L. Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444, etc. 5. In State ofPunjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR (1993) SC 2486 this Court observed (vide paragraph 3 ofthe said AIR): "We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order oftransfer ofpublic servant from one place )-to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point oftime a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order oftransfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order oftransfer ofthe respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur.

The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction tmder Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia in amatter r where, on the face ofit, no injustice was caused" 6. In Abani Kanta Ray v. State ofOrissa, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 169; (1996) Lab IC 982, this Court observed (vide paragraph 10): "It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident ofservice is not to be interfered with by the 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. (See NK. > Singh v. Union ofIndia)" 7. The scope ofjudicial review oftransfer under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao v. Union of India, [1993] 1 SCC 148; AIR (1939) SC 1236, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, [2001] 8 SCC 574; AIR (2001) SC 3309, and State Bank ofIndia v. Anjan Sanyal, [2001] 5 SCC 508; AIR (2001) SC 1748.

Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State ofUP. , (1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70 and Onkarnath Tiwari v. The ChiefEngineer, Minor Irrigation Department, UP. Lucknow, (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998) All LJ 245, has held that the principle oflaw laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order oftransfer is a part ofthe service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise ofits discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Comt finds that either the order is ma/afide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order ofthe appellant from Muzaffamagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA.

On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalfofrespondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation ofan MLA, that by itselfwould not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty ofthe representatives ofthe people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and ifthere is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfe~ such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance ofan M. P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circw11stances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order. 9. The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. N. J. Appeal dismissed