SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Vs.
Damodar Prasad Pandey
C.A.No.6207 of 2004
(Arijit Pasayat and C.K.Thakker JJ.)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Head learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent no.1, while working as a teacher in Sanskrit in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, (AOC) Jabalpur, and M.P. questioned his transfer to J
& K. Smt. Sushila Pandey, respondent No.5 in the present appeal was
transferred to Jabalpur in place of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed
Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (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
respondent NO.1 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 & 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 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 posting 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
Sangathan. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. There was an
interim order of stay passed by this Court on 19.3.2004 so far as the order of
the High Court is concerned.
4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by
the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafide
or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see
Ambani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa, (Suppl) 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative
guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India vs.
S.L. Abbas 6. Who should be transferred and posted 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 guidelines or
rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India
& Ors. Janardan Debanath & Anr. it was observed as follows:
"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 a particular 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 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 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 Corpn. Ltd. vs.
Shri Bhagwan1".
5. In the present case, the Tribunal categorically came to hold that malafides
were not involved and the High Court did not disturb that finding. That being
so, the High Court's further direction that the respondent No.1 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.
1(2001) 8 SCC 574