Syed Irfan Ali vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the transfer policy guidelines do not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and S.L. Abbas, the Court reiterated that transfers are matters for administrative authorities to decide based on exigencies of service and that courts cannot interfere unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation. The Court noted that there were no allegations of mala fides and no violation of any statutory provision, only a contention regarding violation of transfer guidelines. The Court found no good ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order. However, considering the matter in its entirety, the Court directed that if the appellant files a representation within 7 days, it shall be disposed of within 15 days thereafter, with intimation to the appellant. The writ appeal was disposed of with this modification.

Facts

The appellant, Syed Irfan Ali, a Constable in the Excise Department (Class-III post), challenged an order dated 28.06.2022 issued by the Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), transferring him from Mahasamund to Durg. The appellant argued that the transfer violated Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, which limits transfers of Class-III employees to 10% of the cadre strength, whereas approximately 88% of constables (229 out of 250) had been transferred. He also sought suspension of the transfer order until his representation was considered. The respondents stated that many transferred constables had already been relieved. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that transfer policies do not confer indefeasible rights and citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that transfers are based on administrative exigencies and not employee choice. The Single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 28.06.2022, transferring the petitioner from the Office of District Excise Officer, Mahasamund to the Office of Deputy Commissioner Excise, Divisional Flying Squad, Division Durg, is vitiated due to violation of Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, which allegedly limits transfers of Class-III employees to 10% of the cadre strength, when approximately 88% of constables were transferred? Petitioner's contention: The transfer order is vitiated as it violates the 10% cadre strength transfer limit stipulated in Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, for Class-III employees. Respondents' contention: No specific contention recorded regarding the violation of the transfer policy, but it was submitted that in many cases, transferred constables were relieved on the day of transfer. 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage without considering the alleged violation of the transfer policy and the petitioner's grievance regarding the extent of transfers?