Union of India & Ors. v. H.N. Kirtania

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: K.N. Singh
M.H. Kania
Judgment Date: 1989-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; the High Court's orders dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986 are set aside; there will be no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; High Court's injunctions and interim orders set aside; transfer order stands.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

H.N. Kirtania

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General
• T.C. Sharma
• C.V. Subba Rao

Counsels for Respondents

• Girish Chandra

Case Synopsis & Summary

Transfer of a public servant on administrative grounds or in public interest is ordinarily not to be interfered with by courts and a transferable post holder generally has no legal right to insist on posting at a place of choice. In this case, the respondent, H.N. Kirtania, a Central Government officer serving as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta, was transferred to Jaipur by an order dated 14 September 1985. He did not join his duty at Jaipur and subsequently moved the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition assailing the transfer. The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining effect to the transfer and even issued orders restraining the authorities. Contempt proceedings and further interim directions followed, and the transfer order remained in limbo as the matter wended through the appellate process. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeals, held that there was no legal right in a public servant holding a transferable post to demand posting at Calcutta or any particular station, and that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted. It criticized the manner in which interim orders were issued and reaffirmed the principle that transfers should be resisted only on strong grounds, such as violation of statutory rules or mala fides. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the High Court’s orders set aside, with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Transfer of a public servant 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 mala fides.
Administrative discretion in transfers; public interest as a justification for transfer.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union of India and the appellants contend that the transfer of H.N. Kirtania from Calcutta to Jaipur is an administrative measure taken in public interest. A public servant holding a transferable post has no legal right to insist on a posting at a particular place; the High Court's injunction on the transfer impeded legitimate administrative functions and was unwarranted. There was no demonstrated violation of statutory rules or mala fides; the transfer should stand and the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the transfer order was not properly justified and violated his rights to seek assignment at Calcutta. He sought relief in the writ petition opposing the transfer, asserting improper implementation and judicial scrutiny of the order is warranted; he maintained that the order should be subject to validity.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,,,-~ A _v._ H.N. KIRTANIA JULY U,1989 B [K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] )>"' _Service law-Transferable post-Government servant-Whether_ _has a legal right of posting at a place of choice-Transfer-Interference_ # with by Courts. t The respondent, a Central Government officer, who was transfer· <;: red from Calcutta to Jaipur, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and a learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction against the trans· #### -1 fer order and a direction to the appellants to allow the respondent to join duty at Calcutta. The stay application filed by the appellants was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence these appeals D by the Union of India. Allowing the appeals, HELD: Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless ~. E thl(re are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illeg11I on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of _mala_ _fides._ [396B-C J In the instant, case, the respondent being a Central Government employee held a transferable post and was liable to be transferred F from one place to the other in the country. He has no legal right to insist ##### for his posting at a place of his choice. Therefore there was no good [~· ] ground for the High Court for interfering with the respondent's transfer. [396A·B·Cl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. <ii 2943-45 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.86, 11.10.85, & ¥~ 12.4.85, of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 4054/85 C.R. No. 15253(W)/85 & C.O. No. 6078(W)/1985. _H_ G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Shar111a, 394 ### - f #### • ':~":~''·:1 '"l1 U.0.1. _v._ H.N. KIRTANIA 395 C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. A Girish Chandra for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER B Delay condoned. Leave granted. These three appeals are directed against three orders of the C Calcutta High Court dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986. H.N. Kirtania, respondent is in the employment of the Central Government, under the Central Passport Organisation. At the relevant period he was posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta. He was transferred from Regional Passport D Office, Calcutta to Jaipur under an order dated 14.9.1985. He was relieved from Regional Passport Office, Calcutta on 15.3.1985 with a direction to report for duty to the Regional Passport Office, Jaipur. He did not join his duty at Jaipur instead he proceeded on leave for a month. During the period, he was on leave the respondent filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court assailing the validity of his trans- E fer. A learned single Judge issued order on 12.4.1985 restraining the Central Government authorities from giving effect to the order of transfer and release. An application for vacating the interim order was filed on behalf of the appellant but the same was not disposed of. In the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated against ihe authorities at the instance of the respondent on the allegation that he F was not allowed to rejoin his duty at Calcutta in pursuance to. the interim injunction. A learned single Judge by his order dated U.10.1985 issued rule for contempt to the appellants and further issued interim direction for paying all arrears of salary to the respondent within three weeks. The appellants filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court against the aforesaid order alongwith an G interim stay application. The interim stay application was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 24.1.1986. In view of these orders the transfer order could not be implemented and the respondent continued to stay at Calcutta. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not find any H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. A valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Government. The respondent being a Central Government employee held a B transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to the other in the country, he has no legal right to insist for his posting at Calcutta or at any other place of his choice. We do not approve of the cavaliar manner in which the impugned orders have been issued without considering the correct legal position. 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 ###### C the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of _ma/a fides._ There was no good ground for interfering with the respondent's transfer. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the High Court's O orders dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986. There will be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed. .. ### \. #### • '