State may reorganize employees between departments without consent where their service conditions remain protected.

The petitioners were officers and employees of the Madhya Pradesh Police Fire Services, appointed under the Indian Police Act, 1861, and serving at different fire stations in Indore.

In 2010, the subject of “Fire Prevention” was transferred from the Home Department to the Urban Administration and Development Department under the amended Madhya Pradesh Government Business (Allocation) Rules.

Consequential orders transferring the Fire Services establishment were challenged, following which the Cabinet cancelled those orders on 6 September 2011.

However, the subsequent administrative arrangement retained the Fire Services under the Urban Administration and Development Department while preserving the police status, rank, designation and service conditions of existing employees.

Pursuant to proceedings in W.P. No. 456/2023, the State Government decided on 20 June 2024 to hand over the entire Police Fire Services establishment, including its officers, employees and assets, to the Urban Administration and Development Department.

A consequential communication dated 16 July 2024 sought details necessary to implement the transfer.

The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that they could not be transferred from the Police Department without consent, amendment of the applicable service rules, or observance of natural justice, and sought posting in the District Police.

The connected petition involved substantially the same controversy and was adjudicated by the common order.

Whether the petitioners, as employees of the Police Fire Services appointed under the Indian Police Act, 1861, possessed a vested or enforceable right to remain under the Home Department and to seek posting in the District Police despite the State’s decision to reorganise and place the Fire Services under the Urban Administration and Development Department.

Whether the impugned orders dated 20 June 2024 and 16 July 2024 unlawfully altered the petitioners’ employer or service conditions without their consent, statutory amendment, or compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Whether the impugned administrative reorganisation was arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly in view of the alleged posting of certain higher-ranking officers in the District Police.

The Court applied Article 226/227 of the Constitution, under which judicial review does not ordinarily extend to substituting the Court’s view for a legitimate governmental policy or administrative reorganisation absent illegality, jurisdictional error, arbitrariness or infringement of legal rights.

The Madhya Pradesh Government Business (Allocation) Rules and the State’s executive power to allocate governmental functions permitted the transfer of the subject of Fire Prevention and the administrative placement of the Fire Services.

The Court held that preservation of existing service conditions does not create an indefeasible right to remain under a particular department.

Since the petitioners continued to be employees of the same State Government, the requirement of employee consent or a tripartite agreement applicable to transfer between distinct employers, as discussed in Union of India v. R. Thiyagarajan, Ganesh Chandra Jha v. Steel Authority of India and Balco Captive Power Plant v. NTPC, was not attracted.

The principles of natural justice in H.L. Trehan v. Union of India were distinguished because the impugned orders constituted a general policy decision and did not impose individual punishment or an adverse determination of charges.

The reference to Fire Services in the Twelfth Schedule, read with Article 243-W, supported the State’s administrative policy concerning municipal and fire-service functions, though the Court treated the operative basis as the governmental reorganisation and consequential orders.

The Court held that cancellation of the 2010 transfer orders did not permanently restore the Fire Services to the Home Department.

The Cabinet decision of 6 September 2011, the subsequent order dated 20 September 2011, and the arrangement dated 2 March 2012 contemplated administrative control under the Urban Administration and Development Department while protecting the existing employees’ service conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioners could not rely on their initial appointment under the Police Act or the earlier administrative arrangement to claim a perpetual right to remain under the Home Department.

The impugned orders operated within the same State Government and therefore did not transfer the petitioners from one independent employer to another; the authorities had also assured that their existing service conditions would not be altered to their disadvantage.

The Court found no demonstrated actual deprivation of salary, benefits, promotion, retirement rights or other accrued service entitlement.

Any future adverse alteration contrary to the applicable rules, appointment orders or governmental assurance could be separately challenged.

The allegations of discrimination were unsupported by proof that the petitioners and the higher-ranking officers allegedly posted in the District Police were similarly situated in all material respects.

It held that they had no enforceable or vested right to continue under the Home Department or to demand posting in the District Police, and that the State was competent to reorganise the Fire Services and place the establishment under another department of the same Government, subject to protection of accrued service conditions.

The challenge to the order dated 20 June 2024 and consequential communication dated 16 July 2024 was rejected for want of jurisdictional error, statutory illegality, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights.

W.P. No. 21899 of 2024 was dismissed, and W.P. No. 22093 of 2024 was also dismissed in terms of the common order.

No order as to costs.