Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Shankar Shedge, working as Extension Officer (Statistics) with Raigad Zilla Parishad, challenged his transfer order dated 19-05-2017 from Roha to Murud under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that he had not completed the normal tenure of 10 years at one place as per the transfer policy, having served only 7 years and 11 months, and that no reasons were assigned in the order. The respondents filed a reply justifying the transfer, stating that the Zilla Parishad has a cadre of 37 posts of Extension Officer (Statistics), with 17 posts allotted to ICDS and 20 to General Administration. The petitioner was working at Roha Block on ICDS project. The vacant post at Murud, a hilly region requiring attention, had remained vacant for over a year. Under Government Decision dated 15-05-2014, it was necessary to fill the post. A survey of the ICDS cadre revealed that the petitioner was at serial No.3 in seniority, while two senior officers, Shri A.B. Thale and Shri R.B. Ghotkar, who had served longer at Pen and Mangaon Blocks, were aged about 56 years and nearing retirement. The court considered the submissions and found that the transfer was justified due to administrative exigency and the need to fill a long-vacant post in a hilly area. The court held that the transfer policy did not create a vested right to remain at one place for the full tenure, and the transfer was not arbitrary or mala fide. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Transfer Policy - Petitioner challenged transfer order dated 19-05-2017 transferring him from Roha to Murud before completing 10 years normal tenure - Court held that transfer was necessitated by vacancy at Murud for over a year, petitioner was third in seniority, and senior employees were near retirement - Held that transfer was justified and not violative of policy (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner before completion of normal tenure of 10 years is valid and not in violation of transfer policy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The transfer order dated 19-05-2017 is upheld.
Law Points
- Transfer policy
- administrative exigency
- normal tenure
- seniority
- government decision
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 30
WRIT PETITION NO. 6286 OF 2017
SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, M.S. SONAK
Mr.Avinash K. Jalisatgi a/w. Mr.Amol B. Desai i/b Ratnesh R Mishra for the Petitioner, Mr.C.G. Gavnekar for Respondent No. 2, Mr.P.P. More, AGP for Respondent No.3State
Raigad Zilla Parishad Alibaug And Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a transfer order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of transfer order dated 19-05-2017 transferring him from Roha to Murud.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed transfer was in violation of transfer policy as he had not completed normal tenure of 10 years.
Issues
Whether the transfer order dated 19-05-2017 transferring the petitioner from Roha to Murud is valid and not in violation of the transfer policy.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had not completed the normal tenure of 10 years at one place as per transfer policy, having served only 7 years and 11 months, and no reasons were assigned in the order.
Respondents argued that the transfer was necessitated by a vacancy at Murud for over a year, petitioner was third in seniority, and senior employees were near retirement, justifying the transfer under Government Decision dated 15-05-2014.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer orders are administrative in nature and can be made before completion of normal tenure if administrative exigency exists. The transfer policy does not confer a vested right to remain at one place for the full tenure. The transfer was justified due to vacancy at Murud for over a year and petitioner being third in seniority.
Judgment Excerpts
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is working on the post of Extension Officer (Statistic) has challenged the order dated 19052017 by which he has been transfered from Roha to Murud.
The respondents have filed reply and have justified the action of the transfer of the petitioner.
The vacant post is at Murud which is at a distance of 32 k.m. from Roha. The Block of Murud is hilly region requiring particular attention and Officer to attend the activities of ICDS.
The said post had remained vacant for more than one year and therefore, under Government decision dated 15052014, it was necessary to take a decision to fill the said post.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6286 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court challenging the transfer order dated 19-05-2017. The respondents filed a reply. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 29-06-2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
