Gaurav Swarnkar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not possess 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 to claim a transfer or posting; individual convenience is subordinate to the overarching needs of the administration. 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, which established that transfer policies are incidents of service and it is the employer's prerogative to transfer an employee based on requirements, not the employee's insistence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the transfer policy conferred a right to remain at a particular posting. The Court was not inclined to grant interim relief based on these principles. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage, and the application for interim relief was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities to raise his grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Gaurav Swarnkar, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged a transfer order dated June 23, 2022, issued by the State Government of Chhattisgarh. He was transferred from Janjgir-Champa to Bilaspur. The petitioner argued that he had served at his current posting for over three years and that the transfer violated the government's transfer policy. He contended that the policy limited transfers to a maximum of 10% of employees, but in this case, approximately 88% of constables had been transferred. He also cited a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, emphasizing financial discipline and preference for transfers based on own expenditure. The petitioner also referred to a coordinate bench's order 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 Government of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of the prevailing transfer policy and administrative circulars, thereby vitiating the transfer of the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the transfer order contravened the government's transfer policy, which stipulated a maximum of 10% employee transfers. He asserted that out of 258 working constables, 229 had been transferred, constituting approximately 88% of the strength, which significantly exceeded the policy limit. Furthermore, he relied on a Finance Department circular dated May 27, 2020, advocating for financial discipline and prioritizing transfers based on own expenditure, implying the current transfer was not necessitated by such criteria. He also pointed to a coordinate bench's observation that individual petitions for interim relief would be considered. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel argued that a transfer policy does not confer any vested right upon an employee, and an employee cannot insist on remaining at a particular place of posting for their entire service period.