Summary
A public servant’s transfer is not invalid merely because an MLA recommended it. The competent authority considered the recommendation, asserted administrative and public-interest reasons, and retained the challenging employee in his existing post, district and salary status. With no pleaded mala fides or statutory violation, the Division Bench lacked grounds to set aside the modified posting. The Court restored the Single Judge’s dismissal of the transfer challenge and allowed the selected officer’s appeal.
Issues
- Whether an MLA recommendation by itself invalidated the transfer decision.
- Whether the pleadings and circumstances supplied a permissible basis for judicial review.
- Whether the Division Bench could displace the competent authority’s decision on this record.
Provisions considered
- Article 226; judicial review of transfers, Constitution of IndiaTransfer decisions primarily rest with the competent administration. Interference requires a legally sustainable ground, such as established mala fides or statutory infringement, rather than disagreement with the posting choice or its political recommendation alone. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- An MLA’s recommendation does not by itself vitiate a transfer. Representatives may convey public grievances, and the authorised administration remains competent to act on a recommendation after considering it. The legal inquiry remains directed to the authority’s exercise of power. (¶¶ 9.3, 11, 12, 13)
- Courts do not manage departmental postings. The cited transfer principles reserve review for sustainable grounds such as mala fides or violation of governing law or norms. Non-observance of executive transfer instructions alone does not create an enforceable entitlement to a particular posting. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4)
- Allegations of personal mala fides require appropriate pleadings and joinder of the person accused so that the charge can be answered. No such mala-fide plea against the transferring authority or violation of a statutory provision was advanced here. (¶¶ 9.5, 10, 12, 13)
- The MLA’s note specified administrative exigency and public interest, and the competent authority considered it. The modified order retained the challenger in his prior post and district with unchanged status and salary. The State affirmed application of mind, and the unsupported inference of arbitrariness based only on the MLA’s involvement did not justify interference. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench judgment set aside and the Single Judge’s order restoring the modified transfer arrangement reinstated. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge order restored, leaving the modified transfer order effective. Pending applications disposed of.