Holding

The High Court's direction to post the teacher in Madhya Pradesh is not sustainable and is vacated, as courts may not interfere with a transfer absent malafides or statutory violation.

Summary

A teacher employed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, was transferred to Jammu & Kashmir and challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, alleging malafides and a punitive motive, and also seeking a joint posting with his wife. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence of malafides and holding that the request for a joint posting could not be accommodated absent vacancy. The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding but, nevertheless, directed that the teacher be given a posting in Madhya Pradesh. KVS appealed this direction before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had no authority to alter the transfer absent a proven irregularity. The Supreme Court reiterated that a transfer is a condition of service and may be interfered with only if it is shown to be arbitrary, malafide, or violative of statutory guidelines. Since the Tribunal had found no malafides and the High Court provided no justification for its direction, the Court held the High Court's order unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the High Court's direction and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer order of a government teacher can be set aside or modified by a court in the absence of proof of malafides or violation of statutory norms.
Whether the High Court could direct that the teacher be posted in Madhya Pradesh despite the transfer order being upheld.

Subjects

TransferService lawMalafidesAdministrative discretionJudicial reviewKendriya Vidyalaya SangathanTeacherPublic service

Judgment

A KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SAN GA THAN
v.
DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2004

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

Service Law:

Transfer-A teacher under Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan challenging
his transfer from State of MP. to J&K alleging ma la fides-Tribunal found
c the allegations not established-High Court holding that there was no
illegality in the order of transfer and that there was no reason to disturb the
teacher who replaced the applicant-However, High Court directing that
applicant be given a posting in State of MP-Held, High Court's direction
not sustainable and is vacated
D
Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, (1995] Suppl. 4 SCC 169;
Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444 and Union of India &
Ors. v. Janardan Debanath & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 245, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6207 of2004.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.0.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in C.W.P. No. 3496 of 2003.

Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Rashmi Khanna, Shashank Shekhar and Surya
Kant for the Appellant.
F
Raj Kumar Gupta and Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted.
G
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher in Sanskrit in
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (AOC) Jabalpur, M.P. questioned his transfer
H to J & K. Smt. Sushila Pandey, respondent No. 5 in the present appeal was
578
- KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. D.P. PANDEY [PASAYAT, J.]

transferred to Jabalpur in place of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1
579

filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
A

(in short 'Tribunal'). The transfer order was mainly assailed on the ground
of alleged malafides and to be a punitive transfer issued in colourable exercise
of power. The Tribunal noticed that the allegations of malafides were not
established and the transfer was not vitiated on any score. Plea of the present B
respondent No. I that he and wife should be posted at same place was also
. held to be not acceptable. It was observed that the situation where the husband
and the wife can be kept together would always depend upon the availability
of vacancies and administrative exigencies. It was noted that the present
respondent No. 1 and his wife had worked together for nearly 17 years at
a particular place. It was noticed that respondent No. 5 had worked in J & c
K for about 15 years and she was being given a posting to come back to M.P.,
i.e., to her original place of posting. The original application was dismissed.
The order of dismissal was challenged before the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur .. The High Court noted that there was no reason to disturb the
transfer of 5th respondent and also held that there was no illegality in the D
order of transfer so far ·as the respondent No. 1 is concerned. After having
come to such a conclusion, the High Court gave a direction that the present
respondent No. 1 shall be given a }.!Osting in the State of M.P. It is this part
of the direction given by the High Court which is assailed by the appellant
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. There is no appearance on behalf of the
respondent. There was an interim order of stay passed by this Court on E
19.3.2004 so far as the order of the High Court is concerned.

Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with
by the Courts unlei;s it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide
or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see F
Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, [1995] Suppl 4 SCC 169). Unless the
order of transfer is visited by malafide or is made in violation of operative
guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India v. S.L
Abbas, AIR (1993) SC 2444. Who should be transferred and posttd where
is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative any G
guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union
of India & Ors. v. Janardan Debanath & Anr., (2004] 4 SCC 245 it was
observed as follows :

"No government servant or employee of a public undertaking H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place
or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee
-
appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from orie
place to' another is not only an incident, but a condition of service;
necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Unless an order of transfer is. shown to be an
B
outcome of ma/a fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory
provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals
normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine,
as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own
decision for that of the employer/management, as against such
c orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the
service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in
National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, [200 I]
s sec 574".
In the present case, the Tribunal categorically came to hold that
D
malafides were not involved and the High Court did not disturb that finding.
That being so, the High Court;s further direction thatthe respondent No. l
shall be posted somewhere in M.P. is clearly not sustainable. No reason has
been indicated.to justify the direction. That part of the order of the High Court
is vacated. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
E
R.P. Appeal allowed.