Imtiyaj Khan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition was not to be interfered with. The Court noted that there were no allegations of mala fides or violation of any statutory provision. The contention was based on the violation of transfer guidelines, which are executive instructions and do not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, and Namrata Verma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, emphasizing that transfer is an incident of service, governed by exigencies, and employees do not have a vested right to claim posting of their choice. The Court also referred to Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, stating that unless an order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation, courts cannot interfere. While acknowledging the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge to file a representation, the High Court modified the order to direct that if a representation is filed by the appellant within 7 days, it shall be disposed of within 15 days with intimation to the appellant. The writ appeal was disposed of with this modification.

Facts

The appellant, Imtiyaj Khan, a Constable in the Excise Department (Class-III post), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.06.2022 by the Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), transferring him from Bemetara to Kabirdham. 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. He argued that out of 250 constables, 229 (approximately 88%) had been transferred. He also disputed the learned Single Judge's finding that he had served more than three years at his current posting, stating it was two years and ten months. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.07.2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 24.06.2022, transferring the petitioner from the Office of District Excise Officer, Bemetara to the Office of District Excise Officer, Kabirdham, is vitiated by 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 arguments: The transfer order is vitiated due to a gross violation of the Transfer Policy, 2019, specifically Clause 2.13, as a disproportionately high percentage of Class-III employees (constables) have been transferred, exceeding the permissible limit. The learned Single Judge erred in finding that the petitioner had served more than three years at his current posting, as he had served only two years and ten months. If the court does not interfere with the transfer order, it should suspend it until the petitioner's representation is considered. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not present specific arguments regarding the violation of the transfer policy or the duration of the petitioner's posting. However, they indicated that in many cases, transferred constables were relieved on the day of transfer.