Santosh Kumar Rathore 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, and individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 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 it is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement, not for the employee to insist on or resist a transfer. Consequently, the Court found the writ petition devoid of merit and dismissed it at the admission stage. The interim relief application was also dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities raising his grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Rathore, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 23, 2022, from Janjgir-Champa to Korba. He argued that he had served at his current posting for over three years. He contended that the transfer violated the State's transfer policy, which limits transfers to 10% of employees, as 229 out of 258 constables (approximately 88%) had been transferred. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and prioritizing transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner referred to a coordinate bench's order in a similar case, suggesting that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. The State argued that a transfer policy does not confer a right upon an employee to remain at a particular posting.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, is violative of the State'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? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the transfer policy by exceeding the 10% limit for employee transfers, as 88% of constables had been 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 absolutely necessary. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench's observation in WPS No. 4480 of 2022 (Rajendra Dave Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that a transfer policy does not grant an employee a right to remain at a particular place of posting for their entire service period.