Employer's Assessment Of Employee's Worth Is Final, Suitability Of An Individual For A Particular Post Cannot Be Scrutinized By Courts: J&K HC
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
15 Dec 2024 6:00 PM IST
Emphasising that the assessment of an employee's worth and suitability must be left to the employer's bona fide decision the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that the suitability of an individual for a particular post and administrative exigencies cannot be scrutinized by courts.
Further, the court reiterated that transfer and posting are incidents of service, and an employee cannot claim a vested right to hold a specific post.
While dismissing two petitions filed by one Shafayatullah who had challenged his transfer and reversion from a higher post Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“.. courts cannot interfere with the orders of transfer and substitute their own decision for that of the management, in that the assessment of worth of an employee must be left to the bonafide decision of the employer and such assessment of the employer taking into account multiple factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigency of administration cannot be looked into”
Petitioner, Shafayatullah, initially appointed as a Khilawarzi Inspector in 1992, was temporarily posted as the Executive Officer in the Municipal Committee, Thanamandi, in November 2022, to oversee its affairs. This arrangement was made on a temporary basis, explicitly clarifying that it would not confer any right of promotion or regular posting.
However, in March 2023, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post at the Municipal Committee, Banihal. He challenged this decision before the court, alleging mala fide intentions and a violation of transfer policies. His reversion was followed by another order, wherein the charge of the Executive Officer was assigned to the Tehsildar, Thanamandi, prompting further litigation.
The petitioner argued that his reversion was arbitrary, punitive, and premature, and alleged that it violated the transfer guidelines. He asserted that he was unjustly removed without due consideration.
The respondents countered that the petitioner was posted temporarily to manage administrative exigencies and was reverted after an assessment of his performance. They submitted that the petitioner lacked the qualifications and eligibility to hold the post of Executive Officer under the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Bodies Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.
Adjudicating the matter Justice Wani at the very outset clarified that public servants have no legal right to a particular posting, as transfer is a condition of service. He cited judgments from the Supreme Court, including National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. Bhagwan (2001) and N.K. Singh vs. Union of India (1995), which stress that courts should not interfere with an employer's decisions regarding transfers or postings.
Referring to the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Bodies Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, the Court observed that the petitioner, as a Khilawarzi Inspector, was not eligible for the post of Executive Officer as the rules clearly outlined that the Executive Officer position required specific qualifications and experience, which the petitioner did not possess.
The Court further held that the petitioner's posting as Executive Officer was made in breach of these rules. While the respondents' initial decision to assign him this role might have been based on administrative exigencies, it did not create any vested right for the petitioner to continue in the post.
“.. the respondents in law can said to be well within their rights to post a suitable officer against the post in question and re-post the petitioner herein against his substantive post of Khilawarzi Inspector on the basis of the assessment made by them recognizing his work, efficiency and suitability, which assessment cannot be subjected to judicial review of this Court”, the court remarked.
The Court emphasized that a government servant does not have a legal right to be posted at a specific place as transfer and posting are conditions of service, and such decisions are within the domain of the employer. The Court further underscored that judicial interference in transfer matters is permissible only in cases of proven mala fides or statutory violations, neither of which was evident in the present case.
Concluding that the petitioner had no legal or statutory right to continue holding the post and that the respondents acted within their authority in issuing the reversion order the court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Shafayatulla Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 339
