Santosh Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition was not amenable to interference. The Court noted that the appellant had not alleged mala fides or violation of any statutory provision, but rather a violation of transfer guidelines. It reiterated the principle, citing Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Nausad Rahaman, Namrata Verma, and S.L. Abbas, that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee. Transfers are matters for the appropriate authorities to decide based on administrative exigencies, and courts cannot interfere unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation. The Court also observed that the employee who was to be transferred to the petitioner's place of posting was not made a party. While upholding the dismissal of the writ petition, the Court modified the learned 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.

Facts

The appellant, Santosh Singh, a Constable in the Excise Department (Class-III post), challenged an order dated June 24, 2022, issued by the Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), transferring him from Bemetara to Rajnandgaon. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on July 5, 2022. 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. He contended that out of 250 constables, 229 (approximately 88%) had been transferred, vitiating the order. He also sought suspension of the transfer order until his representation was considered. The respondents stated that many transferred constables had already been relieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 24, 2022, is vitiated by a violation of Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, which stipulates that only 10% of the cadre strength of Class-III employees can be transferred? Petitioner's Arguments: - The transfer order is illegal as it contravenes Clause 2.13 of the Transfer Policy, 2019, by transferring approximately 88% of the Class-III constables, far exceeding the permissible 10% limit. - If the Court does not interfere with the Single Judge's order, the transfer order should be suspended until the appellant's representation is considered, as per the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents had instructions that in many cases, transferred constables were relieved on the day of transfer, though no specific instruction was available for this case. - The learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner had remained in his current posting for over three years and cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that transfer policies do not confer indefeasible rights and that transfers are governed by administrative exigencies.