Domain Of Department To See Where, When, And How Its Employee Can Be Posted, Judicial Review Of Transfers Is Limited: Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to a transfer order issued by the General Manager (Admin), Opto Electronics Factory, transferring the Applicant from Ahmedabad Centre to Kolkata Centre on the grounds of technical work exigencies. The Applicant, appointed in March 2018, has been working in Ahmedabad since March 2021. Feeling aggrieved by the transfer, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad (“Tribunal”). The Applicant argued that there was a selective transfer of him despite other 2017 batch recruits remaining in Ahmedabad. The Applicant submitted a representation stating that he was having a family issue. Additionally, he argued that the transfer policy wasn't followed, as the Transfer and Placement Committee wasn't consulted before issuing the order.

In response, the department justified the transfer stating that there were technical work exigencies and programmatic considerations at the Kolkata Centre. It emphasized that there was a necessity to meet physical survey targets and staff requirements. It argued that the transfer wasn't rotational but driven by work exigencies.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was transferred to Ahmedabad in 2021 at his own request. Upon reviewing the transfer order alongside the communications and the proposal of transfer, the Tribunal held that there existed a compelling necessity in Kolkata for conducting an extensive and detailed soil survey, with the work requiring urgent attention. Additionally, the committee overseeing the transfer took into account the presence of other Assistant Field Officers (AFOs) at the Ahmedabad Centre. Hence, considering the nature of the work in Kolkata and other relevant circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no arbitrariness or discrimination. It held that the determination of employee placement falls squarely within the purview of the employer/department, dictating where, when, and how their employees can be posted. It held that as the transfer was not contested on grounds of incompetency or malfeasance, there existed no basis for judicial review concerning the transfer order.

The Tribunal referred to a series of Supreme Court cases regarding the judicial review of transfer orders. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Ors. (2009) 8 SCC 337, where the emphasized that allegations of malfeasance must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and mere assertions are insufficient to challenge a transfer order. Similarly, in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 178, the SC held that government servants do not possess an inherent right to remain posted at a particular location, and transfers are integral to administrative exigencies. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the courts are generally reluctant to intervene in transfer matters unless there are violations of statutory provisions or evidence of malfeasance. (referred to Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (2004) 11 SCC 402).

Therefore, the Tribunal held that there were no grounds for interference in the transfer order or the rejection of the representation. Thus, the Original Application was dismissed.

Case Title: Shri Gajendra Meena vs. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: O.A.224/2023

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Joy Mathew

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. R.R. Patel