Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Sudhir Vithal Medhekar, was working as an Associate Professor at Bhausaheb Hire Government College, Dhule. By order dated 30th June 2012, he was promoted and posted as Professor at Grant Medical College, Mumbai, in place of respondent No.3, Dr. M.M. Kura, who was transferred to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College, Dhule. The petitioner alleged that he was not allowed to join duty by the Dean of Grant Medical College. Subsequently, by order dated 4th December 2012, the petitioner was posted as Professor at Government Medical College, Aurangabad, and the transfer order of respondent No.3 was cancelled. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his Original Application No.1151/2012 on 18th April 2013. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The main legal issues were whether the transfer order was vitiated by malafides and whether the non-relieving of respondent No.3 invalidated the petitioner's transfer. The petitioner argued that the transfer was malafide and that he was not allowed to join due to the non-relieving of respondent No.3. The respondents contended that the transfer was an administrative decision and the petitioner had no right to choose his place of posting. The court analyzed the facts and found that the Tribunal had correctly held that there was no malafides and that the non-relieving of respondent No.3 did not affect the validity of the petitioner's transfer. The court upheld the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition, holding that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless the order is malafide or in violation of statutory rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Transfer - Transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless malafide or in violation of statutory rules - The petitioner, an Associate Professor, was promoted and transferred to Grant Medical College, Mumbai, but was not allowed to join due to non-relieving of respondent No.3 - The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the subsequent transfer to Aurangabad - Held that the transfer order was not malafide and the non-relieving of respondent No.3 does not invalidate the petitioner's transfer (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner was vitiated by malafides and whether the non-relieving of respondent No.3 invalidates the petitioner's transfer
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The court held that the transfer order was not malafide and the non-relieving of respondent No.3 does not invalidate the petitioner's transfer.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless malafide or in violation of statutory rules
- Non-relieving of predecessor does not invalidate transfer of successor
- Tribunal's finding of no malafides upheld
