Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors.

MARKANDEY KAT JU, 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) of 2005. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS \---~ [2007] 10 S.C.R. A 4. The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad MUZi;tffamagar, had in his writ petition challenged his i 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 B 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. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service vide B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1986) SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR +- c (1991) SC 532, Union of India v. NP. Thomas, AIR (1993) SC 1605, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444, etc. 5. In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR (1993) SC 2486 this Court observed (vide paragraph 3 of the said AIR): D "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 of transfer of public servant from one place )-- to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his E present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction tmder Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused" r 6. In Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, [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 of service G 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 of India)" 7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the H Constitution oflndia has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra MOHD.MASOODAHMADv. STATE[KATJU,J.] 75 Rao v. Union of India, [1993] 1 SCC 148; AIR (1939) SC 1236, A National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, [2001] 8 SCC 574; AIR (2001) SC 3309, and State Bank of India 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 of UP., (1997) 3 ESC 1668; B (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 of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of c law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Comt finds that either the order is ma/a fide 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 D transfer order of the 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 behalf of respondent 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 E was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would 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 transfe~ such an employee. There can F be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an 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