Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal by the Director of School Education, Madras and others against an order of the Tribunal in a service matter concerning the transfer of an employee, O. Karuppa Thevan. The respondent employee had been transferred by the appellant education authorities, and the transfer was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the employee ought to have been heard before the transfer was effected, implying that a prior hearing was mandatory. The appellants, aggrieved by that order, appealed to the Supreme Court. The material facts, as they appeared from the judgment, were sparse. The employee was a government servant under the school education department. He was transferred by the authorities during what appeared to be the middle of an academic term, as his counsel submitted that his children were studying in school and the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. The Tribunal had ruled in the employee's favour on the ground that he ought to have been heard before the transfer. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Supreme Court, but the Court also gave a direction regarding the timing of the transfer. Two legal questions arose: first, whether a government employee has a right to be heard before being transferred; second, whether the fact that the employee's children are studying in school should prevent a transfer during the mid-academic term. The appellants contended that transfer was made for administrative exigencies and no law required a hearing before transfer. The respondent's counsel, while not disputing the general principle, argued that because the respondent's children were studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during the mid-academic term. The appellant's counsel was unable to point out any urgency that would require immediate transfer before the end of the current academic year. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. The Court stated that no law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. Transfer is an incident of service and is generally left to the discretion of the employer, subject to administrative exigencies. However, the Court recognised the human aspect of the matter. It observed that although there is no specific rule requiring consideration of an employee's children's education, in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel was unable to demonstrate such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, thereby holding that no prior hearing was required before transfer. At the same time, the Court directed that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year, giving the respondent relief regarding the timing of transfer. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. This decision balanced the administrative discretion of the employer with the welfare of the employee's family, particularly the education of school-going children, without imposing an absolute legal requirement of hearing before transfer.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer of Government Employee - No Prior Hearing Required - No specific statute cited - The Tribunal held that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. The Supreme Court set aside this holding, observing that no law requires an employee to be heard before transfer when authorities make the transfer for exigencies of administration. Held that the Tribunal erred in law. (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Transfer During Academic Term - Children's Education Consideration - No specific statute cited - The respondent's counsel contended that because the respondent's children were studying in school, transfer should not be effected during mid-academic term. The Supreme Court noted there is no such rule, but in effecting transfer, the fact that children are studying should be given due weight if exigencies of service are not urgent. As the appellant's counsel could not point out urgency, the Court directed not to effect transfer till end of current academic year. Held that education of children is a relevant factor when service exigencies are not urgent. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a government employee is entitled to a hearing before being transferred; whether transfer during mid-academic term should consider the employee's children's education
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order set aside; appellant directed not to effect transfer till end of current academic year; no order as to costs
Law Points
- Transfer of government employee does not require prior hearing
- transfer can be made for administrative exigencies
- children's education should be given due weight if no urgent service exigency
