IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                   OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP© No.5654/07]

The Government of A. P. … Appellant

Versus

G. Venkata Ratnam … Respondent

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  respondent  is  a  Technical  Assistant  in  the  Department  of

Archaeology  and  Museums,  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   He  was

posted in the Office of Director,  Archaeology and Museums, Hyderabad,

where  he  was  able  to  stay,  since  his  appointment  in  the  year  1985,

uninterruptedly  for  a  period  of  20  years.   He  was  transferred  from

Hyderabad and posted in the Office of the Assistant Director (Technical),

Archaeology and Museums, Kakinada by an order issued by the Director on

1

29 June, 2005.  He challenged his transfer order before the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 3050 of 2005.  At that time his appeal

filed before the departmental authorities was pending.  Hence, the Tribunal

disposed of the application by order dated 4 July, 2005 with a direction to

the concerned departmental authority to dispose of the appeal within four

weeks.   The departmental  appeal  was finally dismissed  by order dated 3

August, 2005.  The respondent once again approached the Tribunal in O. A.

No. 4048 of 2005 but the Tribunal declined to interfere in the matter and

dismissed the O.A. by order dated 27 December, 2005.

The respondent took the challenge to his transfer order to the Andhra

Pradesh High Court  in Writ  Petition No.2886 of 2006.  The High Court

allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the respondent’s transfer

by judgment and order dated 23 February, 2007.  The State has come in

appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

 The High Court judgment is wholly untenable and, we regret to say,

it is rather unusual and strange. The judgment was apparently delivered in

anger. The anger might have been caused by the Government Pleader or the

Director (the second respondent before the High Court) but as a result the

Court  not  only  lost  the  judicial  poise  and  restraint  but  also  arrived  at

completely unfounded  conclusions.  The judgment  quotes  a  passage  from

William Dalrymple’s book, ‘The Last Mughal’ about how the Red Fort at

2

Delhi was vandalized by the British and how the damages of the colonial

times are perpetuated by the Archaeological Survey Of India . One fails to

see how the Red Fort, the maintenance of which the Government of Andhra

Pradesh  is  not  even  remotely  connected  with,  comes  into  all  this.  The

reference to the plight of the Red Fort is followed by the observation that

the ancient monuments and archaeological sites in Andhra Pradesh too are

in no better state. In this way the Court declares that the agencies and the

people  entrusted  with  the  responsibility  to  preserve  and  maintain  the

country’s  historical  heritage  are  quite  incapable  and  inefficient  in  the

discharge of the responsibility. But once again we fail to see the relevance

of all this to the simple issue before the Court. Unfortunately this is not the

only  incongruity.  The  judgment  makes,  at  more  than  one  place,  highly

caustic comments about  Government  Officers,  especially the members  of

the Central Civil Service, which in the facts and circumstances of the case

appear to us to be completely uncalled for.

The Court seems to have been completely taken in by the ipse dixit of

the  respondent  and  his  tall  claims  about  his  own  ability  and  virtually

allowed  him  to  choose  his  own  place  of  posting.  The  judgment  at  its

beginning  recounts  the  respondent’s  qualifications  that  include  two

Master’s degrees, one in Sanskrit  and the other in Archaeology, a B. Ed.

degree  in  Sanskrit  and  the  degree  of  Sahitya  Shiromani  from  Sri

3

Venkateswara  University.  The  judgment  then  proceeds  to  observe  as

follows:

“The  petitioner  as  it  appears  from  the  pleadings  is  a highly  qualified  man.  The  confidence  with  which  he made  assertion  in  the  affidavit  dated  13.3.2006  to  the effect  that  ‘if  any  other  employee  has  my  skill, knowledge,  expertise  and  experience  I  forego  my job’ makes this Court examine this matter in depth and not treat the impugned order as a mere order of transfer in the course of administration.”

It further observes as follows:-

“The petitioner asserted in his affidavit dated 13.3.2006 that he has expertise in deciphering early Rock and Stone and Copper Plates inscriptions in Brahmi, early Telugu and  Kannada,  Nagari,  Tamil  and  Tamil  Grandha.  He further  asserted  that  other  than  the  petitioner  that  no other  employee  in  the  entire  Archaeology  Department with  the  expertise,  knowledge  or  experience  in  these matter  and  that  his  services  are  required  more  at  the head office.”

The  Court  then purports  to  remind itself  that  transfer  is  an incidence  of

service and is not to be lightly interfered with.  It proceeds to elaborate that

this  judicial  policy  is  based  on  two  reasons,  one  the  continuance  of  an

employee of the State Government at one particular place for a long time is

likely to create undesirable consequences like creation of vested interests

and misuse of the power that comes with the employment under the State

and  the  other  being  the  exigencies  of  the  administration  requiring  the

4

service  of  a  particular  person  at  a  particular  place.  It  then  proceeds  to

explain  away  that  the  first  reason,  that  is,  the  undesirability  of  stay  at

anyone place for a long time should not apply to the case of the respondent

because in Archaeology, in any event one worked in ancient times and dealt

with ‘the dry bones of history’.

The Court  then went on to hold that  the respondent’s transfer  was

also not made in administrative exigencies. For arriving at this finding the

Court refers to the catalogues of manuscripts, in different languages that are

kept in Hyderabad and in Kakinada and accepts the petitioner’s assertion

that with his knowledge and ability he is most suited to work at the head

office in Hyderabad than in any other place in the State. The Court refers to

the respondent’s  assertion  in  his  affidavit  that  in  the entire  Archaeology

Department  there  is  no  other  employee  equaling  him  in  expertise,

knowledge and experience in these matters and that his services are required

more at the head office and points out that in the counter affidavit filed by

the  Director  there  was  no  express  contradiction  of  the  assertion.  It  is

observed as follows:-

“She is conspicuously silent about the nature of the work that  is  required  to  be  carried  at  the  State  Museum at Hyderabad  and also whether there is any other person who is qualified to carry on the said work.”

5

Lastly, the Court finds that in the original proposal for transfer made

by the Director the respondent’s place of posting was shown as Kurnool.

The Court observes that there was no explanation why the respondent was

finally transferred to Kakinada in place of Kurnool. On these materials, the

Court came to the conclusion that the transfer of the respondent was clearly

not bona fide, to say the least.        

We are surprised to see the High Court castigating the respondent’s

transfer  order  as  lacking  in  bona  fide  on  such  flimsy and  fanciful  pleas

advanced  by  the  respondent.  We  are  more  than  satisfied  that  the  High

Court’s finding regarding lack of bona fide in the matter on the part of the

State  Government  is  completely  unfounded  and  untenable.  The  legal

position regarding interference by Courts in the matter of transfer is too well

established to  be repeated  here.  The respondent’s  transfer  neither  suffers

from violation of any statutory rules nor can it be described as mala fide by

any stretch of imagination. We are, accordingly, unable to sustain the High

Court’s order. In the result this appeal is allowed, the order coming under

challenge is set aside and the writ  petition filed by the respondent in the

High Court is dismissed.

 At  the  conclusion  of  the  hearing  of  the  case,  counsel  for  the

respondent stated that the Government had reconsidered the matter. It was

6

willing  to  bring  back  the  respondent  to  Hyderabad  and  an  order  to  that

effect was likely to be issued. We have got nothing to say in the matter.  

………………………………J [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

         ……………………………….J  [AFTAB ALAM]

New Delhi, July  21, 2008             

7

8