Case Note & Summary
The dispute in this appeal concerned the applicability of an Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 issued by the Government of India to attract and retain competent officers for service in the North Eastern Region comprising Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. The memorandum provided fixed tenure posting of three years for officers with service of ten years or less and two years for those with more than ten years, and stated that officers on completion of fixed tenure may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. Respondent No.1 was originally appointed as Wireless Operator in the Department of Post & Telegraph in 1964 and posted at Bandilla in Arunachal Pradesh. He served throughout his career at various stations within the North Eastern Region, with significant periods at Agartala, which was his home town. On 8.7.1993, the Chief General Manager, North Eastern Telecom Circle, Shillong transferred him from Tuensang, where he had served as Assistant Engineer from 24.10.1990 to 15.7.1993, to Dimapur. The respondent challenged this transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in Original Application No. 268 of 1993, claiming that he had completed the two-year tenure period and under the 1983 memorandum had acquired the right to choice posting, and that his choice station was Agartala. The Tribunal accepted his contention and by order dated 25.1.1994 directed his transfer from Dimapur to Agartala. The appellants, the Chief General Manager and another, appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the choice posting provision of the 1983 memorandum applied to employees who belonged to the North Eastern Region itself, as distinct from officers posted there from outside. The appellants argued that the memorandum was intended to attract officers from other parts of the country, not local employees, and that even otherwise the choice posting was not mandatory. They also pointed out complaints and vigilance investigations against the respondent during his previous posting at Agartala. The respondent maintained that he had completed the tenure and acquired a right to choose posting. The Supreme Court examined the memorandum and held that its language and purpose showed it was meant for attracting and retaining officers from outside the North Eastern Region. The expression 'tenure posting' implied posting of officers from outside the region, not those appointed and posted within it. This view was supported by the earlier decision in Union of India v. Vijay Kumar, where special duty allowance under similar memoranda was held not available to residents of the region. Applying the same analogy, the court ruled that the respondent, who admittedly belonged to the North Eastern Region and whose home town was Agartala, could not claim choice posting. The court also reiterated that a government employee holding a transferable post has no legal right to insist on posting at any particular place unless specifically provided in service conditions, and that transfers made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds. Finding no such grounds, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 25.1.1994, and dismissed the respondent's original application without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer/Posting - Choice Posting under Office Memorandum - Office Memorandum No. 20014/283-E.IV dated 14.12.1983 - The O.M. provided fixed tenure posting and consideration for posting to a station of choice for Central Government civilian employees serving in the North Eastern Region. The Supreme Court held that the memorandum was meant to attract and retain competent officers from outside the region; the expression 'tenure posting' referred to officers posted from other regions, not those appointed and posted within the region itself. Therefore, a local employee belonging to the North Eastern Region was not entitled to claim choice posting there. Held that choice posting after tenure was available only to persons from outside the North Eastern Region (Paras 3-6). B) Service Law - Right to Posting at Particular Place - Government Employee Holding Transferable Post - Not mentioned - A government employee has no legal right to insist on being posted at any particular place unless specifically provided in service conditions. The respondent held a transferable post and had no statutory or legal right to claim posting at Agartala, so the Tribunal erred in setting aside the transfer to Dimapur. Held that the respondent had no legal or statutory right to claim posting at Agartala (Paras 6-7). C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Transfer Orders - Interference with Transfer on Administrative Grounds - Not mentioned - Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and unjustifiable. The Supreme Court found no such grounds; rather, complaints and vigilance investigations against the respondent made posting at Agartala not justifiable from an administrative viewpoint. Held that the transfer order was justified and the Tribunal's interference was unsustainable (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of a civilian employee of the Central Government serving in the States and Union Territories of North Eastern region to a station of their choice as far as possible, under Office Memorandum No. 20014/283-E.IV dated 14.12.1983, is applicable even to officers and employees who belong to that region itself and are appointed and posted at any station within that region.
Final Decision
The appeal succeeded and was allowed. The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.1.1994 was set aside, and the application filed by Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Law Points
- Choice posting under Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 is available only to officers from outside North Eastern Region
- not to local employees
- Government employee has no legal right to insist on posting at a particular place unless service conditions specifically provide
- Transfer of public servant on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless strong and compelling grounds exist
- Office Memorandum No. 20014/283-E.IV dated 14.12.1983 was meant to attract and retain competent officers from other parts of the country.
