Rajesh Singh Kshatriy vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not have a fundamental or vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right. The needs of the administration and exigencies of service are paramount, and individual convenience is subject to these overarching needs. The Court relied on 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, which established that transfer policies do not grant employees the right to insist on or prevent their transfer. The Court found no inclination to grant interim relief and dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding it to be devoid of merit. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Singh Kshatriy, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged a transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. He was transferred from Janjgir-Champa to Raigarh. The petitioner argued that his transfer violated the government's transfer policy, which limits transfers to a maximum of 10% of employees, citing that out of 258 constables, 229 (approximately 88%) had been transferred. He also referred to a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and the need for transfers only when absolutely necessary. A co-ordinate bench's observation in a similar case was also brought to the court's attention. The State contended that transfer policies do not confer a right to remain in a particular posting.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of the government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13 concerning the percentage of employees transferable, and the Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, regarding financial discipline and necessity of transfers? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer order violated the transfer policy by exceeding the 10% limit for employee transfers, as approximately 88% of constables were transferred. He also contended that the transfer was contrary to the Finance Department's circular emphasizing financial discipline and the need for transfers only when essential. Reliance was placed on a co-ordinate bench's observation in WPS No. 4480 of 2022 (Rajendra Dave Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) suggesting consideration of individual petitions for interim relief. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that transfer policies do not confer any right upon an employee to remain in a particular place of posting for their entire service period.