Three Panchayat Teachers challenged their transfer, claiming violation of Rule 13 prohibitions. The Court held that as the transfer order described them as Block Teachers and no mandatory statutory rule was violated, the transfer, being an incidence of service, was sustained.
The writ application was dismissed, upholding the transfer orders.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1919 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Pramod Kumar Late Mahabir Prajapati Uchaila,Po+Ps-Rohtas,In The District Of Rohtas. 2. Ajay Kumar Pandey Shri Jagdish Pandey Pathauliya,Po_Ps-Rohtas In The District-Of Rohtas. 3. Sahindra Ram Ram Kripal Ram Baskatiya Tola Gobindpur Po+Ps,Rohtas,In The District Of Rohtas. 4. Sanjay Kumar Late Mukhlal Singh Baskatiya,Po+Ps,Rohtas In The District Of Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar,Through The Principal Secretary,Department Of Education,Government Of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Director,Primary Education Government Of Bihar,Patna. 3. The District Education Officer,Rohtas. 4. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector,Rohtas. 5. The District Programme Officer (Estahlishment)Rohtas. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner,Rohtas. 7. The Block Development Officer,Rohtas Block In The District Of Rohtas. 8. The Block Education Committee Rohtas Block,Through Its Secretary Block Education Officer,Rohtas As Block In The District Of Rohtas. 9. The Block Education Officer,Rohtas Block In The District Of Rohtas. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to Ag ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.1919 of 2012 (4) dt.14-08-2012
2
defence in the counter affidavit be that the transfers had been done as a measure of rationalization to ensure equal distribution of Teachers according to student ratio. Referring to Clause (5) & (6) of the circular more particularly, it is submitted that no list has been prepared much less approved by the authority concerned.
Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are Block Teachers as mentioned in the impugned order. The counter affidavit adequately explains the need for transfer of the petitioners to ensure availability of teachers and the Court may not interfere with the same.
The impugned order describes the petitioners as Block Teachers. There is no pleading in the writ application that the impugned order contains a misdescriptionof their status. The recitals in the order have to be given finality. If the petitioners were raising an objection with regard to non compliance of any conditions of the administrative directive dated 2.11.2007, the pleadings had to be specific. The rejoinder does not contain any specific assertion as an issue of fact that the procedures provided in the government circulars have not been followed.
Rule 13 contains an absolute prohibition for transfer of Panchayat Primary Teachers. There is no absolute prohibition to the transfer of block Teachers. On the contrary, they can apply for two transfers during their service tenure at an interval of three years. If a choice posting was permitted to them it necessarily follows that the Government also has to be given discretion for their posting so as to ensure availability of teachers at locations for which the government is the best suited agency. The Court can hardly have the experience, expertise, knowledge and data to decide which Block Teacher shall be placed at what location and at what locations and in what manner the teachers-students ratio has to be determined. These are purely administrative matters.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1919 of 2012 (4) dt.14-08-2012
3
Transfer and postings are normal incidence of service.
As far back as (1989) 2 SCC 602 (Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani ) it was observed at paragraph 4 as follows:-
“4. Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other 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 other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other.”
It has been followed in (2009) 11 SCC 678 (Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat). In (2010) 3 SCC 306 (State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh) judicial restraint in matters of transfer has been advised observing at paragraph 12 as follows:-
12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1919 of 2012 (4) dt.14-08-2012
4
administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India .”
In so far as the contention of the petitioner on the administrative circulars is concerned, reference may appropriately be made to 1991 Supp. 2 SCC 659 (Shilpi Bose {Mrs} v. State of Bihar) that even if transfer order was in violation of any executive instruction or orders that may not be sufficient justification for the Court to interfere when the affected may approach the department concerned observing at paragraph 4 as follows:
“4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.”
The writ application is dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J)
Snkumar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can interfere with a transfer order of government servants when no mandatory statutory provision for non-transfer is alleged.
Whether violation of an executive circular constitutes sufficient ground for judicial interference in administrative transfer orders.
Whether the determination of teacher-student ratios and postings falls within the judicial prerogative or administrative discretion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal PoshaniReferred¶15
(1989) 2 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of GujaratFollowed¶17
(2009) 11 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Kashmir SinghFollowed¶17
(2010) 3 SCC 306 · Who else cites this
Shilpi Bose (Mrs) v. State of BiharFollowed¶22
1991 Supp. 2 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Pramod Kumar
Ajay Kumar Pandey
Sahindra Ram
Sanjay Kumar
The State Of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
