Transfer and posting orders must be reasoned and follow established administrative norms; otherwise, they are subject to judicial review.

Held: The modification of posting without assigning reasons was arbitrary. Judicial review is applicable where administrative decisions lack transparency.

Final Order: Writ petitions dismissed, Tribunal’s order upheld, and the previous posting order reinstated. (Para 20-22)

Major Acts Discussed:

• Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction exercised to examine arbitrariness in administrative action.
• Maharashtra Civil Services Rules – Government’s authority in modifying transfer/posting orders discussed.

Subjects:

Transfer modification – Government Resolution – Arbitrariness – Judicial Review – Administrative Law – Competent Authority – Tribunal’s Decision – Posting on Promotion – Service Law – Reasoned Order.

Question of Law:

a) Whether the modification of posting under Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024, without assigning reasons, was arbitrary?
b) Whether judicial review under Article 226 was applicable in the absence of procedural fairness in transfer orders?

Nature of Litigation:

• Writ Petitions challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s decision that set aside the Government Resolution modifying the postings of RTO officers.

Relief Sought:

• Petitioner sought reinstatement of modified posting order granting her RTO Pune assignment, quashed by the Tribunal.
• The State sought validation of its administrative decision in modifying transfer postings.

Reason for Filing the Case:

• Challenge to the Tribunal’s decision, which found the modification of transfer postings arbitrary and unsupported by any documented reasoning.

Prior Decisions:

• The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, set aside the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 and restored the earlier posting under the resolution dated 16/03/2024.

Issues Considered:

a) Whether the State was justified in modifying RTO postings without procedural justification?
b) Whether the modification violated administrative law principles?
c) Whether the Tribunal’s interference in service matters was justified under judicial review?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioner (Archana Gaikwad & State): Modification was justified due to personal hardship and health conditions. No statutory provision mandates a specific procedure for modification of posting orders.
• Respondent (Shyam Lohi): Modification was arbitrary, done under influence, and lacked transparency. State failed to produce records justifying the change.