Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
H.N. KIRTANIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1989
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
KANIA, M.H.
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1774 1989 SCR (3) 397
1989 SCC (3) 447 JT 1989 (3) 132
ACT:
Service law--Transferable post--Government
servant--Whether has a legal right of posting at a place of
choice--Transfer----Interference with by Courts.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent, a Central Government officer, who was
transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur, filed a Writ Petition
in the High-Court and a learned Single Judge granted, an
interim injunction against the transfer order and a direc-
tion to the appellants to allow the respondent to Join duty
at Calcutta. The stay application filed by the appellants
was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence
these appeals by the Union of India.
Allowing the appeals,
HELD: Transfer of a public servant made on administra-
tive grounds or in public interest should not be interfered
with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering
the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of
statutory rules or on ground of mala fides. [396B-C]
In the instant, case, the respondent being a Central
Government employee held a transferable post and was liable
to be transferred from one place to the other in the coun-
try. 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 trans-
fer. [396A-B-C] .
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 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.
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma,
395
C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
Girish Chandra for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These three appeals are directed against three orders of
the 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 relevant period he was posted as Public Relations
Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta. He was
transferred from Regional Passport 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 Of-
fice, 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 transfer. 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 the authorities at the
instance of the respondent on the allegation that he was not
allowed to rejoin his duty at Calcutta in pursuance to the
interim injunction. A learned single Judge by his order
dated 11.10.1985 issued rule for contempt to the appellants
and further issued interim direction for paying all arrears
of salary to the respondent within three weeks. The appel-
lants filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High
Court against the aforesaid order alongwith an 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 respondent continued to stay at Calcutta.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not find
any
396
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 Government. The re-
spondent being a Central Government employee held a trans-
ferable 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 cavalier manner in
which the impugned orders have been issued without consider-
ing 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 the transfer order illegal on the ground
of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala fides.
There was no good ground for interfering with the respond-
ent’s transfer.
We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the High
Court’s 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.
?397