Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Rafi Sab Nadaf, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Office of the Tahsildar, Mundargi, from 15.09.2015. He was transferred and posted to Gadag as Revenue Inspector by order dated 10.08.2018. Aggrieved by the transfer, he filed an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, which was rejected on 22.11.2018. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer was in violation of the transfer policy and that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to continue at Mundargi. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are mala fide or contrary to statutory rules. The court noted that the transfer policy does not have the force of law and does not confer a vested right on the employee. The petitioner failed to establish any mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Transfer - Transfer Policy - The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector, challenged his transfer from Mundargi to Gadag. The Tribunal rejected his application. The High Court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules. The transfer policy does not confer a vested right. (Paras 1-4) B) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial Review - Scope - The court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited. Unless the transfer is contrary to statutory provisions or mala fide, the court will not interfere. The petitioner failed to establish any mala fides or violation of rules. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner was in violation of the transfer policy and whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the application challenging the transfer.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.11.2018 in Application No.8050/2018 is upheld.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules
- Transfer policy is not a statute
- No right to be posted at a particular place
