STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSIYA RAM AND ANR.

A                        STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                                   v.
                           SIVA RAM AND ANR.

                              AUGUST 5, 2004

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

         Service Law :

         Transfer of employee on administrative ground-(;hallenge to-
C Allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held : Transfer of an employee
  appointed against transferable post is a condition of service necessary in
  public interest and efficiency in public administration-Employee cannot
  claim as a matter of any legal right to be posted at a particular place of
  his choice-No material available to link the transfer with the outcome of
  departmental proceedings pending against-No mala tides could be
D attributed to the order oftransfer-Hence, Order ofHigh Court indefensible.
         Respondent-employee was transferred from one place to another
    by the employer-State Government on administrative ground. Re-
    spondent challenged the Order, which was quashed by the High Court
E   on the ground that it was punitive in nature and had been passed by
    the State Government without awaiting the decision in the disciplinary
    proceedings against the employee. Hence the pritsent appeal.

         Allowing the appeal, the Court

F       HELD : 1.1. No Government servant or employee of a public
  undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one
  particular place or place of his choice since transfer of an employee
  appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place
  to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary
G too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless
  an order of transfer is shown to be an 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
H authorities substituting their own decision for that. of the employer/
                                      348
                 STATE v. SIYA RAM [PASAYAT, J.)                     349

 management, as against such orders passed in the interest of admin- A
 istrative exigencies of the service concerned. (350-D, E, F)

        National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan &
. Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 574 and Union ofIndia & Ors. v.Janardhan Debanath
  & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 243, relied on.
                                                                           B
       1.2. The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was
 connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota
 of material to arrive at the conclusion. No ma/a fides could be
 attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in
 public interest. In view of the settled position in law the judgment of C
 the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. j350-H; 351-A)

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5005 of
 2004.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.2003 of the Allahabad High D
 Court in Writ Petition No. I 557 (SB) of 2002.

      Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Appellant.

      Rajesh Kumar for the Respondents.
                                                                           E
     · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

       While respondent No. I was functioning as an Executive Engineer F
 (Mechanical), Irrigation Division-I, Government of U.P., he was trans-
 ferred from the Tubewell Division-I, Ghazipur to the office of Joint Chief
 Engineer, Tubewell East, Faizabad. The transfer order dated 23.10.2002
 shows that the transfer was on administrative grounds.

       The said order of transfer of respondent No. I having been quashed G
· by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, State ofU.P. is in appeal.
  The respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court question-
  ing the order of transfer. The primary stand taken in the writ application
  was that the order of transfer was as a measure of punishment. An enquiry
  in a departm.ental proceedings had been initiated. Without affording him H
    350                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A an opportunity of being heard, the transfer was done as a measure of
  punishment. The disciplinary action which was taken against respondent
  No. I pursuant to the enquiry conducted was referred to the Uttar Pradesh
  Public Service Commission for approval. But it was not approved. The
  present appellant-State filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the
B transfer of the writ petitioner was on administrative grounds and merely
  because the writ petitioner was transferred to a non-working post that did
  not in any way vitiate the order of transfer.

          The writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment dated
    5.11.2003 holding that the order of transfer was punitive in nature and had
C   been passed by the State Government without awaiting the decision in the
    disciplinary proceedings.

        The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
  227 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') had gone
D into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public
  service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably
  depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No
  government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right
  to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since
E transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of
  transferable posts from one place to other 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
  outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory
F 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 orders passed in the interest
  of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was
  highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
G Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan and Anr., [2001] 8 sec 574.

         The above position was recently highlighted in Union of India and
    Others v. Janardhan Debanath and Another, [2004] 4 SCC 243. It has
    to be noted that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer
H   was connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota
                 STATE v. SIYA RAM [PASAYAT, J.]                       351

of material to arrive at the conclusion. No ma la fides could be attributed A
as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in public interest.

      In view of the settled position in law the judgment of the High Court
is indefensible and is set aside.

       Learned counsel for respondent No. I submitted that respondent shall B
file a representation highlighting the various difficulties which may or have
resulted from the transfer and the non-desirability thereof. If such repre-
sentation is made to the appropriate authorities, it goes without saying that
the same shall be considered in its proper perspective and in accordance
with law. We do not express any opinion in that regard. The appeal is C
allowed to the extent indicated with no order as to costs.

S.K.S.                                                    Appeal allowed.