Sumit Sharma vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The Court found no good ground to interfere with the transfer order. It reasoned that allegations of mala fides were absent, and there was no violation of any statutory provision. The contention regarding the violation of transfer guidelines was addressed by stating that executive instructions in the form of transfer guidelines do not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee. The Court referred to Supreme Court pronouncements in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and S.L. Abbas, emphasizing that transfer is an incident of service, governed by administrative exigencies, and that individual convenience is subordinate to administrative needs. The Court noted that the transferred employee was not made a party respondent. While upholding the dismissal, the Court modified the Single Judge's order by directing 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 ratio decidendi is that transfer policies are executive instructions and do not create legally enforceable rights, and courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.

Facts

The appellant, Sumit Sharma, a constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 28, 2022, issued by the Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), transferring him from the Office of District Excise Officer, Raipur to the Office of District Excise Officer, Balod. The appellant contended 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 learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing Supreme Court judgments that transfer is an incident of service and administrative directions do not confer indefeasible rights. The High Court heard the writ appeal against this dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 28, 2022, is vitiated by a violation of Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, which allegedly limits transfers of Class-III employees to 10% of the cadre strength, given that approximately 88% of constables were transferred? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the transfer order is invalid because it contravenes the 10% cadre strength limit for transfers of Class-III employees stipulated in Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019. He asserted that the mass transfer of 229 out of 250 constables (approximately 88%) clearly violates this policy. He also requested that the transfer order be suspended pending consideration of his representation. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, through the Deputy Advocate General, stated they had instructions that in many cases, transferred constables were relieved on the day of transfer, but lacked specific instructions for this case. They did not otherwise contest the appellant's factual assertion regarding the percentage of transfers.