Smt. Vandana Gurnani vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The appellant, Smt. Vandana Gurnani, was appointed as Senior Accountant in TRIFED. She was initially posted in New Delhi and then transferred to Raipur. Subsequently, she was transferred to Bhopal and then back to Raipur. A further transfer order dated 04.03.2025 from TRIFED, Raipur to Tribal Shop of TRIFED at Amar Palace, Raipur, as Shop Incharge, was challenged. The appellant argued that there is no post of Senior Accountant at the Tribal Shop, which deals with selling tribal items, and her expertise lies in finance and accounts. She also raised concerns about the working hours, lack of female washrooms, and potential joint responsibility for a shortage of Rs. 4,27,604/- in the financial session of 2024-25, allegedly caused by a daily wage employee, Respondent No. 4. The appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to this writ appeal.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition. The Court found that the posting of the appellant within the local area, from the Regional Office to the Tribal Shop of TRIFED in Raipur, was not an order of transfer but rather a charge of another office within the same department. The learned Single Judge observed that the posting was in the interest of administration for the smooth functioning of the department and could not be termed illegal or arbitrary. The appellant failed to demonstrate any mala fide intention or violation of statutory provisions. The Court reiterated the settled law that transfer is an incident of service, and the decision on who should be transferred where rests with the appropriate authority, unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations. The writ appeal was found to be devoid of merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 04.03.2025, posting the appellant as Shop Incharge at the Tribal Shop, Amar Palace, Raipur, is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, given her appointment as Senior Accountant with expertise in finance and accounts and the absence of a Senior Accountant post at the Tribal Shop? Petitioner's Arguments: The transfer order is unreasonable and unwarranted, aimed at harassing the appellant. Her expertise is in finance and accounts, not managing a retail shop. The working hours and conditions at the Tribal Shop are unsuitable, especially for a female employee, and lack basic facilities like separate washrooms. The learned Single Judge erred in treating it as an additional charge rather than a complete transfer to a post for which she is not qualified and where no such post exists. The appellant also raised concerns about being held jointly responsible for financial shortages caused by a daily wage employee. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering all aspects. The transfer is within the local area and is an administrative decision for the smooth functioning of the department, not vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. The Court should not interfere with such administrative orders.