Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the transfer policy does not confer any indefeasible right upon a government employee to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. Relying 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, the Court reiterated that transfers are an incident of service governed by the exigencies of service and the needs of the administration. Individual convenience is subordinate to overarching administrative requirements. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the transfer policy created a vested right, nor did it find the transfer order to be in violation of established legal principles. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage, and the interim relief application was also dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 23, 2022, from Janjgir-Champa to Bilaspur. He argued that he had served at his current posting for over three years and that the transfer violated the State's transfer policy. Specifically, he contended that the policy limited transfers to a maximum of 10% of employees, whereas approximately 88% of constables had been transferred. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preferring transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's observation in a similar case, suggesting individual petitions for interim relief would be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of the State's transfer policy and the Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, thereby vitiating the transfer of the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer order contravened the transfer policy by exceeding the permissible 10% employee transfer limit, citing that 229 out of 258 constables were transferred, amounting to 88%. He also pointed to the Finance Department circular advocating for financial discipline and transfers based on own expenditure, suggesting the current transfer was not essential. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench's order in WPS No. 4480 of 2022 (Rajendra Dave Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) which indicated that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that a transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee to remain posted at a particular place for their entire service period.