In a service matter: If a govt servant is transfreed , can it be challanged before CAT even after it has been executed?specially ehn it can be shown that it was arbitraory and without any policy? Do we have important Supreme court decisions in this regard?
It transfer of govt employee is arbitrary and contrary to policy it can be challenged before CAT
2) transfer is an inceidence of service and judicial review is limited
3) Babita Thakur Vs State of HP 2011 SLC 283 transfer cannot be used as an instrument to accommodate/adjust persons without there being any administrative exigency – Neither there was any public interest nor any administrative exigency demanding transfer of petitioner – Impugned order set aside
2011 (4) SLR 482
1994 (6) SCC 98 NK Singh Vs UOI Transfer – scope of judicial review. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfers, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all Government departments.
1993 (1) SCC 148 Rajinder Roy Vs UOI, It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of malafide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances.
1. transfer is an administrative act and the officer has discretion to transfer the employee according to administrative exigency and necessity.
2. the supreme court has held in s k awasthi vs u p jal nigam AIR 2003 SC; that if transfer is influenced with mala-fide intention, political pressure, unreasonable and arbitrary then it should be challenged before the high court under article 227 of the constitution.
3. high court has power to take judicial review of such order and can reverse the order however that order has complied and employee has joined at transferred place.
1. Transfer is a part and parcel of job which has to be accepted unless it is proved that it was actuated with malice.
2. It can be challenged even after execution if the malice can be proved.
An Army engineer, who succeeded in nixing his first transfer in 2011 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), failed to earn similar relief a second time with the CAT as well as the Madras high court saying there was no scope for interference in routine transfers.
"A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place," a division bench of the court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice TS Sivagnanam said.
Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine," they said.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held the personal inconvenience, etc. cannot be a ground to challenge transfer from one place to another by an employee if it do not run contrary to statutory provisions. The court turned down the relief sought by to get transfer to a nearby place on health ground and ailing old-aged mother dependent on him....
Justice Sujoy Paul said “transfer is an incident of service”. “The transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guidelines), issued by an incompetent authority, changes the service condition of an ...
