Holding

A transfer of a public servant made on administrative or public‑interest grounds is not subject to judicial interference unless there are strong and pressing grounds of illegality or mala fides, and the servant has no right to insist on a posting of his choice.

Summary

H.N. Kirtania, a Central Government officer holding a transferable post in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta, was transferred to Jaipur. He refused to join the new posting, went on leave, and filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the transfer. The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the transfer and later dismissed a stay application, leading to the Union of India appealing the orders. The Supreme Court held that a servant in a transferable post has no legal right to insist on a posting of his choice and that transfer orders made on administrative or public‑interest grounds cannot be interfered with unless there are strong grounds of illegality or mala fides. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's injunction and other orders, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a Central Government servant holding a transferable post has a legal right to a posting of his choice.
Whether courts may interfere with a transfer order of a public servant made on administrative or public‑interest grounds.

Subjects

service lawtransfer of government servanttransferable postwrit petitioninjunctionadministrative lawpublic interestmala fidesjudicial review

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ,,,-~

v.
H.N. KIRTANIA

JULY U,1989

B [K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.]
)>"'
Service law-Transferable post-Government servant-Whether
has a legal right of posting at a place of choice-Transfer-Interference

t-
with by Courts.

<;: The respondent, a Central Government officer, who was transfer·
red from Calcutta to Jaipur, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and
a learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction against the trans·
fer order and a direction to the appellants to allow the respondent to
-1
join duty at Calcutta. The stay application filed by the appellants was
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence these appeals
D by the Union of India.

Allowing the appeals,

HELD: Transfer of a public servant made on administrative
grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless ~.
E thl(re are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order
illeg11I on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala
fides. [396B-C J

In the instant, case, the respondent being a Central Government
employee held a transferable post and was liable to be transferred
F from one place to the other in the country. He has no legal right to insist
for his posting at a place of his choice. Therefore there was no good
~·
ground for the High Court for interfering with the respondent's
transfer. [396A·B·Cl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
<ii 2943-45 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.86, 11.10.85, & ¥~
12.4.85, of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 4054/85 C.R.
No. 15253(W)/85 & C.O. No. 6078(W)/1985.

H G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Shar111a,
394
':~":~''·:1
'"l1

U.0.1. v. H.N. KIRTANIA 395

C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
A
Girish Chandra for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER B

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.
- f These three appeals are directed against three orders of the C
Calcutta High Court dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986.

H.N. Kirtania, respondent is in the employment of the Central
Government, under the Central Passport Organisation. At the rele-
vant period he was posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional
Passport Office, Calcutta. He was transferred from Regional Passport D
Office, Calcutta to Jaipur under an order dated 14.9.1985. He was
relieved from Regional Passport Office, Calcutta on 15.3.1985 with a
direction to report for duty to the Regional Passport Office, Jaipur.
He did not join his duty at Jaipur instead he proceeded on leave for a
month. During the period, he was on leave the respondent filed a writ
petition in the Calcutta High Court assailing the validity of his trans- E
fer. A learned single Judge issued order on 12.4.1985 restraining the
Central Government authorities from giving effect to the order of
• transfer and release. An application for vacating the interim order was
filed on behalf of the appellant but the same was not disposed of. In
the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated against ihe
authorities at the instance of the respondent on the allegation that he F
was not allowed to rejoin his duty at Calcutta in pursuance to. the
interim injunction. A learned single Judge by his order dated
U.10.1985 issued rule for contempt to the appellants and further
issued interim direction for paying all arrears of salary to the respon-
dent within three weeks. The appellants filed an appeal before a Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court against the aforesaid order alongwith an G
interim stay application. The interim stay application was dismissed by
a Division Bench of the High Court on 24.1.1986. In view of these
orders the transfer order could not be implemented and the respon-
dent continued to stay at Calcutta.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not find any H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

A valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition
against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central
Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid
justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Govern-
ment. The respondent being a Central Government employee held a
B transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to
the other in the country, he has no legal right to insist for his posting at
Calcutta or at any other place of his choice. We do not approve of the
cavaliar manner in which the impugned orders have been issued with-
out considering the correct legal position. Transfer of a public servant
made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be
interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering
C the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules
or on ground of ma/a fides. There was no good ground for interfering
with the respondent's transfer.

We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the High Court's
O orders dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986. There will be no
order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

\. ..

•'