In a single bench order dismissing a writ petition challenging an internal transfer of an employee within the same university campus, the Court held that transfer is an incident of service and the employee has no vested right to retain a specific post.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.2840 OF 2019
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to following relief/s:-
“… pleased to issue Writ or Order, direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.2069/Ser(NT)-I/2018, dated 28.02.2019 to transfer the petitioner from the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal, Vigilance & Special Cell) to the post of Assistant Registrar (Academic and Research) to the post of Assistant Registrar (Academic and Research) in Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Venkataramanna gudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District is illegal, improper, arbitrary against the Service Rules, Code of Election Rules and Rule-1 of the guidelines of Transfer policy issued in proceedings No.3846/Ser(NT)/ 2018, dated 26.05.2018 of the Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University besides being opposed the principles of natural justice in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above said impugned proceedings No. 2069/Ser(NT)I/2018, dated 28.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders …”
2
Registrar, he has been discharging his duties without any blemish. He is the President of Non-teaching Employees State Association bearing registration No.549/ELR/2011 of Dr. YSR Horticultural University since, 2011. Being the President of the above said Association he used to question irregularities in the administration in the interest of the non-teaching employees of the State. On number of occasions, the petitioner made repeated representations to the authorities of the University to take action against the persons, who are responsible for such irregularities. But, they paid deaf-ear. Then, he used to conduct „dharna‟ in the interest of employees. One of such incident that took place was that some of the candidates were recruited as Senior Assistants and Superintendents based on fake experience certificates, without working in any government organization either as Junior Assistants or Senior Assistants, as mentioned in the notification of the University. Infact, if they would have worked somewhere else, so the appointing authority has to make verification of their relieving orders, initial appointments, promotions and in the feeder category before joining in the University. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondents to conduct an enquiry. But, no such enquiry was conducted to find out genuiness of certificates submitted by the candidates. The petitioner conducted a „dharna‟ and taking advantage of it, instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings, the respondents issued an order of transfer vide proceedings No. 2069/Ser(NT)-I/2018, dated
3
28.02.2019 transferring the petitioner from the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal, Vigilance & Special Cell) to the post of Assistant Registrar (Academic and Research), Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. The same is now questioned before this Court on the ground that, the petitioner is transferred as he conducted dharna, which is contrary to guideline No.1 of the guidelines for transfer policy vide proceedings No.3846/Ser(NT)/2018, date 26.05.2018 of YSR Horticultural University and the decision is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, hence, sought a directed as stated above.
4
5
particular place or station or post in view of the law laid down by various Courts. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and against by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions.
In “ B. Varadha Rao V. State of Karnataka and Others ” and “ Shilpi Bose V. State of Bihar1 ”, it is held as
under:-
“It is entirely upon the competent authority to decide, when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have a vested right to be posted at a particular place”.
In “ Gujarat Electricity Board V. Atmaram Sungomal
Poshani ”2 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
“Transfer of a Government served appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to another is generally a condition of service and the employee has not choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration”. In “ Union of India V. H.N. Kirtana3 ”, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court observed as under:-
“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 malafide.”
1 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659
2 1989 AIR 1433
3 (1989) 3 SCC 445
6
In “ State Bank of India V. Anjan Sanyal4 ”, the Apex
Court held as under:
“An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order”.
4 (2001) 5 SCC 508
7
by the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date : 26-11-2021 EPS
8
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
60
WRIT PETITION No.2840 OF 2019
Date : 26-11-2021
EPS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the single bench High Court can interfere with the order of transfer of a public servant from one post to another in the same University premises.
Whether the petitioner has a legally enforceable right to resist the transfer order which is alleged to be in violation of the transfer policy guidelines.
Whether the transfer order is tainted by malafides or violates statutory rules warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B. Varadha Rao V. State of Karnataka and OthersExplained¶19
B. Varadha Rao V. State of Karnataka and Others
Shilpi Bose V. State of BiharExplained¶19
Shilpi Bose V. State of Bihar
Gujarat Electricity Board V. Atmaram Sungomali PoshaniExplained¶22
Gujarat Electricity Board V. Atmaram Sungomali Poshani
Union of India V. H.N. KirtanaExplained¶25
(1989) 3 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
State Bank of India V. Anjan SanyalExplained¶32
State Bank of India V. Anjan Sanyal
Assistant Registrar
Respondents
M.Satyanaarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
