A writ petition challenging a transfer order and the subsequent rejection of a representation by the SBI Corporation was dismissed. The Court held the transfer based on administrative exigency was lawful as it did not violate statutory rules.
Writ petition dismissed and transfer order stood ratified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Reserved.
Court no. 39.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18994 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ajay Bhati Respondent :- The Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J)
Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 11.6.2018, passed by the respondent no.2, the Chief General Manager (Human Resource), State Bank of India Corporate Centre, Mumbai, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Kanpur to Patna. Another prayer made is with regard to quashing of the order dated 14.8.2018, passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner which was preferred pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 15271 of 2018. The petitioner has also prayed for transferring him as per transfer policy dated 23.3.2018 and as per General Transfer Policy of the Bank in the Circle.
The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he is posted as Deputy Manager (Security) (Middle Management Grade Scale-II) (MMGS-II) in the State Bank of India and is presently posted at District Kanpur Nagar and comes under the category of 'specialist officer'. In the year 2016, the petitioner was transferred to the Administrative office of the Bank at Kanpur and now by the transfer order dated 11.6.2018, the petitioner has been transferred to Patna which is a different Circle of the Bank, which cannot be done as per the transfer policy of the Bank. It is further contended that the petitioner is working in the Lucknow Circle and
2
his transfer to Patna Circle is in violation of transfer policy of the Bank and, therefore, the transfer order deserves to be set aside.
This transfer order dated 11.6.2018 was previously challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of Writ-A No. 15271 of 2018 relying on Clause F (ii) of the Transfer Policy of the Specialist Officer. That writ petition was disposed of on 18.7.2018 with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation.
Now, by an order dated 14.8.2018 that has been enclosed as annexure2 to the writ petition, the respondent no.2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner. The relevant part of the order of respondent no.2 is quoted below:
“4.While transfer of officials in JMG/MMG Scales will normally be effected within the parent Circle, should the exigencies of service so warrant, such officials will be subjected to transfer outside the Circle also. As no vacant position is available in Lucknow Circle, he was transferred to Patna Circle on administrative exigencies.
It is evident from perusal of the order passed by the respondent no.2 that the petitioner was transferred to Patna Circle on administrative exigency. It has been observed that the petitioner has remained posted in Lucknow Circle for more than 9 years and stay of the petitioner in the Circle is maximum among all Security Officers posted in Lucknow Circle and there is a surplus number of Security Officers thereat and there is no violation of the service rules.
3
The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held as follows:
"7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.
There cannot be any manner of doubt that the transfer is an exigency of service and unless and until some statutory rule is violated or it is shown to be an outcome of mala fide, this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction would not interfere in an order passed by the competent authority who has objectively taken into account the requirement of administrative exigency. Therefore, we find the claim of the petitioner to be specious and the order passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the
4
representation of the petitioner is justified and requires no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
No order as to costs.
Date: 20.9.2018
sfa/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of a Deputy Manager from Kanpur to Patna violates the Bank's transfer policy of working within a Circle.
Whether this Court should interfere with the administrative exigency of service guiding the transfer order.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation against the transfer is justified under service rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. and others Vs. Gobardhan LalApplied¶19
(2004) 11 SCC 402 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Bhati
The Union of India
Chief General Manager HR SBI
3 Others
B. Amit Sthalekar
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
