Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were District Judges in the State of Maharashtra, challenged their transfer orders issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. They contended that the transfers were made without giving them an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice. They also alleged that the transfers were malafide and not in accordance with the transfer policy of the High Court. The respondents, including the High Court and the State of Maharashtra, defended the transfers as administrative actions taken in the interest of judicial administration. The court examined the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests control over subordinate courts in the High Court. It held that the power to transfer District Judges is an integral part of that control and is administrative in nature. Relying on precedents, the court stated that transfer is an incident of service and no prior hearing is required. The court also rejected the allegations of malafides, noting that no specific instances were pleaded. Regarding the transfer policy, the court observed that it is only a guideline and not a statutory rule, so any deviation does not make the transfer illegal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the transfer orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Article 235 - Transfer of District Judges - Administrative Action - The High Court has control over District Courts and subordinate courts under Article 235, which includes the power to transfer District Judges. Such transfers are administrative in nature and do not require a prior hearing. The court held that transfer is an incidence of service and no opportunity of hearing is necessary before passing a transfer order. (Paras 5-10) B) Service Law - Transfer - Malafides - Allegations of malafides must be specific and supported by material. General allegations without particulars are not sufficient to invalidate a transfer order. The court found no evidence of malafides in the present case. (Paras 11-15) C) Service Law - Transfer Policy - The High Court's transfer policy is not a statutory rule and deviations do not render the transfer invalid. The court held that the transfer policy is only a guideline and non-compliance does not vitiate the transfer order. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of District Judges by the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India is an administrative action that requires prior hearing and whether the transfer order is vitiated by malafides or violation of transfer policy.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Transfer orders upheld.
Law Points
- Transfer of District Judges is an administrative function of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India
- No prior hearing required before transfer
- Transfer order cannot be challenged on grounds of malafides without specific allegations
- Transfer policy must be followed but not strictly as a rule
