Supreme Court Upholds Transfer Order Based on MLA Recommendation in Service Matter: Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2024) INSC 200 (13 March 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 March 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 200

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a government employee’s transfer be valid if it’s influenced by a recommendation from a local MLA? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the transfer of a Deputy Director of School Education in Arunachal Pradesh. The core issue was whether a transfer order, modified based on a UO Note from an MLA, is legally sound, or if it constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the scope of judicial review in transfer matters, emphasizing that courts should not interfere unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intentions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The case revolves around the transfer of government employees in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. Initially, on 15 November 2022, Respondent No. 5 was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School (GHSS) Kanubari to Leparada as Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE). However, this order was later modified on 20 April 2023, based on a UO Note dated 28 February 2023, from the MLA of 29-Basar (ST) Assembly Constituency. The MLA’s note requested the transfer of the appellant, Sri Pubi Lombi, to the DDSE post in Leparada, citing administrative exigency and public interest. This modification resulted in Respondent No. 5 being retained in his previous position.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the modified transfer order dated 20 April 2023. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that the transfer, even if based on the MLA’s UO Note, was valid in the absence of any malafide intentions or violation of statutory provisions. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, observing that the transfer was not based on administrative exigencies or public interest but was a result of arbitrary exercise of power. The Division Bench noted that the modification of the transfer order was done without proper application of mind and solely based on the MLA’s recommendation. The Supreme Court then heard an appeal against the Division Bench’s order.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to establish the legal framework for transfer matters. The court emphasized that judicial review of transfer orders is limited. It can only be exercised when there is a violation of statutory provisions or if the transfer is due to malafide intentions. The court cited the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357, which stated that unless a transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions, courts should not interfere. The Court also referred to Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704, which held that interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the person challenging the transfer must prove that the transfer is prejudicial to public interest, as stated in N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 98.

The Supreme Court also cited Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2007) 8 SCC 150, which stated that a transfer order is not necessarily vitiated even if it is based on the recommendation of an MLA. The court noted that it is the duty of the people’s representatives to express grievances, and the government is within its jurisdiction to transfer an employee based on such complaints. The Court also referred to State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC 2486, which affirmed that it is the employer’s prerogative to decide when and where a public servant is transferred. Finally, the court cited Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors.; (2013) 1 SCC 524, which reiterated that when allegations of malafide are made, the persons against whom the allegations are made must be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.

Arguments

The appellant, Sri Pubi Lombi, argued that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited. They contended that the High Court should not interfere with transfer orders unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intentions. The appellant also argued that a transfer order is not automatically invalid simply because it was influenced by an MLA’s recommendation.

Respondent No. 5, on the other hand, argued that the transfer order was indeed malafide, because it was done without application of mind and solely based on the MLA’s recommendation. They contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the transfer order, as it was not based on administrative exigencies or public interest.

The State of Arunachal Pradesh supported the appellant’s position, asserting that the modified transfer order was issued in public interest after due application of mind. They contended that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Judge’s well-reasoned judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Single Judge, which upheld the transfer order of the Appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

Authorities and their treatment by the Court:

• The Court followed Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357* to reiterate that judicial review in transfer matters is limited to cases of statutory violation or malafide.
• The Court followed Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704* to emphasize that interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible.
• The Court followed N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 98* to highlight that the person challenging the transfer must prove that the transfer is prejudicial to public interest.
• The Court followed Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2007) 8 SCC 150* to state that a transfer order is not necessarily vitiated even if it is based on the recommendation of an MLA.
• The Court followed State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC 2486* to affirm that it is the employer’s prerogative to decide when and where a public servant is transferred.
• The Court followed Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors.; (2013) 1 SCC 524* to reiterate that when allegations of malafide are made, the persons against whom the allegations are made must be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principles regarding the scope of judicial review in transfer matters. The court emphasized that judicial interference is only warranted when there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intentions. The court also considered the fact that the respondent did not implead the person against whom the allegation of malafide was made. The Court also gave weight to the fact that the State Government had averred that the transfer was made in public interest after due application of mind. The court also noted that the transfer did not affect the salary or status of the respondent. The Court also considered the fact that the transfer was not detrimental to the employee, as the respondent was retained in the same district and same status which he was holding prior to order of transfer dated 15.11.2022.

Fact:Law Ratio: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%) of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A transfer order is not automatically invalid simply because it was influenced by a recommendation from a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).
• ✓ Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases where there is a violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intentions.
• ✓ The burden of proof lies on the person challenging the transfer to demonstrate that the transfer is prejudicial to public interest.
• ✓ When allegations of malafide are made, the persons against whom the allegations are made must be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
• ✓ Government authorities have the discretion to transfer employees in public interest, and such decisions should not be interfered with unless there are compelling legal reasons.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a transfer order is not invalid merely because it was influenced by an MLA’s recommendation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters, emphasizing that courts should not interfere unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intentions. This judgment reinforces the principle that government authorities have the discretion to transfer employees in public interest and that such decisions should not be lightly interfered with. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the application of existing principles to a specific factual scenario.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s order and restoring the Single Judge’s decision. The court held that the transfer order of the appellant was valid, as it was not vitiated by malafide or violation of any statutory provision. The court reiterated that judicial interference in transfer matters is limited and should only be exercised in cases of clear statutory violations or malafide intentions. The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting the administrative discretion of government authorities in transfer matters, provided such decisions are made in public interest and without any malafide intentions.