http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: H.N. KIRTANIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1989

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1774            1989 SCR  (3) 397  1989 SCC  (3) 447        JT 1989 (3)   132

ACT:     Service        law--Transferable        post--Government servant--Whether has a legal right of posting at a place  of choice--Transfer----Interference with by Courts.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent, a Central Government officer,  who  was transferred  from Calcutta to Jaipur, filed a Writ  Petition in  the  High-Court and a learned Single Judge  granted,  an interim  injunction against the transfer order and a  direc- tion to the appellants to allow the respondent to Join  duty at  Calcutta. The stay application filed by  the  appellants was  dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.  Hence these appeals by the Union of India. Allowing the appeals,     HELD:  Transfer of a public servant made on  administra- tive grounds or in public interest should not be  interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds  rendering the  transfer  order illegal on the ground of  violation  of statutory rules or on ground of mala fides. [396B-C]     In  the  instant, case, the respondent being  a  Central Government employee held a transferable post and was  liable to  be transferred from one place to the other in the  coun- try.  He has no legal right to insist for his posting  at  a place of his choice. Therefore there was no good ground  for the High Court for interfering with the respondent’s  trans- fer. [396A-B-C]    .

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  2943-45 of 1989.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.86, 11.10.85,  & 12.4.85, of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.  4054/85 C.R. No. 15253(W)/85 & C.O. No. 6078(W)/1985. G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma, 395 C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. Girish Chandra for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Delay condoned. Leave granted.     These three appeals are directed against three orders of the  Calcutta  High Court dated  12.4.1985,  11.10.1985  and 24.1.1986.     H.N.  Kirtania, respondent is in the employment  of  the Central Government, under the Central Passport Organisation. At  the  relevant period he was posted as  Public  Relations Officer  in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta.  He  was transferred  from  Regional  Passport  Office,  Calcutta  to Jaipur under an order dated 14.9. 1985. He was relieved from Regional  Passport  Office,  Calcutta on  15.3.1985  with  a direction  to report for duty to the Regional  Passport  Of- fice, Jaipur. He did not join his duty at Jaipur instead  he proceeded on leave for a month. During the period, he was on leave  the respondent filed a writ petition in the  Calcutta High Court assailing the validity of his transfer. A learned single  Judge  issued  order on  12.4.1985  restraining  the Central  Government  authorities from giving effect  to  the order  of transfer and release. An application for  vacating the  interim order was filed on behalf of the appellant  but the  same  was not disposed of. In  the  meantime,  contempt proceedings  were initiated against the authorities  at  the instance of the respondent on the allegation that he was not allowed  to rejoin his duty at Calcutta in pursuance to  the interim  injunction.  A learned single Judge  by  his  order dated 11.10.1985 issued rule for contempt to the  appellants and further issued interim direction for paying all  arrears of  salary to the respondent within three weeks. The  appel- lants  filed an appeal before a Division Bench of  the  High Court against the aforesaid order alongwith an interim  stay application. The interim stay application was dismissed by a Division  Bench of the High Court on 24.1.1986. In  view  of these orders the transfer order could not be implemented and the respondent continued to stay at Calcutta. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not find any 396 valid  justification for the High Court for  entertaining  a writ petition against the order of transfer made against  an employee  of  the Central  Government  holding  transferable post.  Further there was no valid justification for  issuing injunction  order  against the Central Government.  The  re- spondent  being a Central Government employee held a  trans- ferable  post and he was liable to be transferred  from  one place to the other in the country, he has no legal right  to insist for his posting at Calcutta or at any other place  of his  choice.  We do not approve of the  cavalier  manner  in which the impugned orders have been issued without consider- ing the correct legal position. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest  should not be interfered with unless there are strong and  pressing grounds  rendering the transfer order illegal on the  ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala  fides. There  was no good ground for interfering with the  respond- ent’s transfer.     We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the  High Court’s  orders dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985  and  24.1.1986. There will be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                                      Appeals allowed. ?397