Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (7) TMI 1358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Lucknow on August 22, 2007 whereby the High Court although upheld the order of the transfer of Karvendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Writ Petitioner") but quashed the order of transfer of Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Respondent No. 5"). Both, Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court and hence, these two appeals by special leave. 2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unitive. 4. Respondent No. 5 filed a separate counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition. He set up the plea that he has rich experience as Sub-Registrar having worked at places such as Allahabad, Kanpur, Varanasi and Ghaziabad. He stated that vigilance enquiry against him has been closed and his appeal against the adverse entry made in his service record in 2005 is pending and that pending disposal of that appeal, no effect has been given to the said adverse entry. 5. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an emplo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. 7. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 1998, this Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision. 8. Insofar as the transfer of Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II is concerned, the High Court found that the transfer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us misconduct for causing loss to the Government revenue by acting without jurisdiction and colluding evasion of stamp duty, in our view transfer of the respondent No. 5 to Ghaziabad can not be sustained in view of further admission on the part of the respondent No. 1 that the interest of department requires posting of an honest and efficient person at Ghaziabad. 9. It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went into the comparative conduct and integrity of the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 while dealing with a transfer matter. The High Court should have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny into a matter of transfer and the limited scope of judicial review. Respondent No. 5 being a Sub-Registrar, it is for the State Government or f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the High Court casts stigma in the service of Respondent No. 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks. 11. We may also observe that transfer of the Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II cannot be said to be stigmatic and any observation made in the impugned order about the work and conduct of the Writ Petitioner shall not be read adversely by the authorities against the Writ Petitioner. 12. Consequently, the order dated August 22, 2007 passed by the High Court quashing the transfer of Respondent No. 5 from Hapur-II to Ghaziabad-IV is set aside. Appeal of Rajendra Singh is allowed while appeal of Karvendra Singh stands dismissed with clarification as indicated above. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates