Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a service matter concerning the transfer of an Executive Engineer in the Department of Water Resources of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent, an Executive Engineer, had been transferred from Bhopal to Jagdalpur by proceedings dated 9.7.1993. He challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal, which by order dated 7.8.1993 allowed his application, quashed the transfer order, and directed that he not be transferred during the period of ban. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The material facts show that the respondent worked as Assistant Engineer at Bhopal from 3.6.89 to 25.7.92, and after a short spell of six months he was again posted at Bhopal in the promoted post of Executive Engineer from 19.10.92 to 9.7.93. The transfer to Jagdalpur was initiated at the instance of the Chief Engineer. The Tribunal quashed the transfer on the ground that during President's Rule, a ban on transfers was imposed and prior approval of the Governor was required, which was not obtained. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the transfer order for want of Governor's approval; (2) whether the transfer was vitiated by mala fides or extraneous consideration; and (3) whether personal hardship could be considered by the court in transfer matters. The State argued that the transfer was based on administrative grounds and that approval of the Adviser to the Governor was obtained on 9.7.1993, which is a valid delegation under business rules. The respondent contended that he had already served at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and there was no justification to retransfer; that approval of the Governor was a condition precedent; and that his wife's suicide leaving three children caused extreme hardship in a tribal area. The Supreme Court held that courts and tribunals are not appellate forums to decide transfer orders on administrative grounds. Administrative decisions should stand unless vitiated by mala fides or extraneous consideration. The Court found no such vitiating factor. Regarding the Governor's approval, the Court noted that under business rules, the powers of the Governor during emergency are delegated to various officers, and the Adviser (A.S.) had power to accord approval for transfer orders. The approval given by the Adviser on 9.7.1993 was deemed to be on behalf of the Governor, and personal signature of the Governor was not necessary for routine administrative matters. On the hardship ground, the Court stated it could not go into relative hardship, which is for the administration to consider, and the respondent could make a representation to the Government. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and upheld the transfer order as legal and valid. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer of Government Servant - Judicial Review Scope - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court held that courts and tribunals are not appellate forums to decide transfer orders made on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and interference is permissible only if the transfer is vitiated by mala fides or extraneous consideration without factual foundation. In this case, the transfer was based on administrative grounds and no vitiating factor was found. Held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the transfer on grounds of expediency (Paras 4, 7). B) Constitutional Law - President's Rule and Delegation of Governor's Powers - Business Rules - Not mentioned - The respondent contended that the transfer order was bad for want of Governor's prior approval during President's Rule. The Court examined the file and noted that the proposal was approved by the Adviser (A.S.) on 9.7.1993 after being placed before him. Under business rules, powers of the Governor during emergency are delegated to various officers, and the Adviser (A.S.) had power to accord approval for transfer orders. The approval by the Adviser is deemed to be on behalf of the Governor, and personal signature of the Governor is not necessary for routine administrative matters. Held that the transfer order is perfectly legal and valid (Para 5). C) Service Law - Personal Hardship in Transfer - Relative Hardship - Not mentioned - The respondent pleaded hardship due to wife's suicide leaving three children and difficulty in tribal area. The Court held that it cannot go into relative hardship, which is for the administration to consider in the interest of good and efficient administration. The respondent may make a representation to the Government for mitigation of hardship. Held that no ground to interfere on humanitarian grounds (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in quashing the transfer order on grounds of lack of prior approval of the Governor during President's Rule and on grounds of previous posting and personal hardship.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside; the transfer order dated 9.7.93 is upheld as legal and valid; no costs.
Law Points
- Courts and tribunals are not appellate forums to decide administrative transfer orders
- Transfer orders stand unless vitiated by mala fides or extraneous consideration
- Powers of Governor during President's Rule can be delegated under business rules
- Approval by Adviser (A.S.) deemed approval on behalf of Governor
- Personal hardship in transfer is matter for administration not courts
