1997 (1) TMI 554 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer order dated 10-1-1996.
2. Compliance with the Ministry of Defense transfer policy.
3. Existence of exigency of service for the transfer.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions on transfers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the transfer order dated 10-1-1996:
The Union of India challenged the order dated 7-8-1996, which quashed the transfer of the respondent to Secunderabad. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent had not completed the normal three-year tenure in Delhi and was exempt from transfer due to having less than three years of residual service. The Single Judge held that the Union of India did not provide reasons for deviating from the general policy, which was permissible only in exigency of service. The plea of exigency was deemed an afterthought and unsupported by the record.

2. Compliance with the Ministry of Defense transfer policy:
The relevant policy stated that officers with less than three years of residual service were exempt from transfer. The respondent argued that he had not completed his normal tenure as Commanding Officer in Delhi and had less than three years of residual service, making him ineligible for transfer under the policy. The learned Single Judge accepted this argument, noting that the transfer order did not mention any exigency of service or reasons for policy deviation.

3. Existence of exigency of service for the transfer:
The appellants contended that the transfer was due to the exigency of service and administrative grounds. The post of Joint Director, Missile System Quality Assurance Agency, required specialized expertise, and the respondent was deemed suitable due to his prior experience. The appellants argued that the reasons for the transfer existed on record and did not need to be communicated to the respondent. The additional affidavits and records submitted by the appellants supported the claim that the respondent was the most suitable officer available for the post, considering the limited pool of qualified candidates.

4. Judicial review of administrative decisions on transfers:
The court emphasized that decisions on transfers and postings fall within the domain of the concerned authorities and are not typically subject to judicial review unless vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations. The court cited several precedents, including *State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kaurav* and *N.K. Singh v. Union of India*, affirming that transfer is an incident of service and should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of malafides or violation of statutory provisions. The court found that the transfer of the respondent was justified by exigency of service and was not influenced by extraneous considerations.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeal deserved to be allowed. The transfer and posting of the respondent were in exigency of service, and the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the transfer was set aside. The court held that it was not within its jurisdiction to evaluate the comparative merits of officers for posting, as this responsibility lies with the administrative authorities.