Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Shankarrao Narayanrao Jadhav, was a Deputy Collector working as Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune. He was transferred to Satara as Deputy Collector (Revenue) by an order dated 6th March, 2009, issued pursuant to the instructions of the Election Commission of India for transfer of officers who had completed three years in a constituency. The petitioner challenged the transfer order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.214 of 2009, which was dismissed on 30th April, 2010. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The facts reveal that on 14th November, 2008, the Chief Electoral Officer invited proposals from Divisional Commissioners for transfer of officers. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune, submitted a list on 31st December, 2008, which included the petitioner's name. The proposal was processed and concurrence was given by the Chief Electoral Officer on 18th February, 2009. The proposal was then placed before the Chief Minister through the Revenue Minister and approved with modifications. On 2nd March, 2009, a common order transferring 28 officers was issued. However, the authorities realized that the modifications were not placed before the Chief Electoral Officer, so the order was kept in abeyance on 3rd March, 2009. After obtaining concurrence for the modifications, the impugned order dated 6th March, 2009 was issued, which retained the petitioner's transfer to Satara. The petitioner argued that the transfer was arbitrary, violated the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, and was not in compliance with the Election Commission's instructions. The respondents contended that the transfer was in public interest and as per the Commission's instructions. The court held that transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant has no right to choose his posting. The court found that the petitioner had completed more than three years at Pune and the transfer was necessitated by the Election Commission's instructions. The court also noted that the petitioner had not alleged any mala fides against the respondents. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the transfer order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Incidence of Service - Transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant has no right to choose his posting - The court held that the transfer order was passed in public interest and as per the instructions of the Election Commission of India, and there was no violation of any statutory rules or mala fides (Paras 2-10). B) Election Law - Transfer of Officers - Election Commission Instructions - The Election Commission's instructions for transfer of officers who have completed three years in a constituency are binding - The court held that the transfer of the petitioner was in compliance with the Commission's letter dated 14th November, 2008 and the concurrence of the Chief Electoral Officer was obtained (Paras 2-6). C) Service Law - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - Section 4 - Transfer Policy - The court held that the transfer order was not in violation of the Act as the petitioner had completed more than three years at the same station and the transfer was necessitated by the Election Commission's instructions (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Pune to Satara was arbitrary and in violation of the Election Commission's instructions and the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The court upheld the transfer order dated 6th March, 2009 and the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 30th April, 2010.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incidence of service
- Election Commission's instructions for transfer of officers during election period are binding
- no right to choose posting
- judicial review limited to mala fides or violation of statutory rules.
