Santosh Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not have a vested right to claim a posting of their choice. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, which established that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers do not confer an indefeasible right. The Court emphasized that individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. It also cited the Supreme Court's observation in Namrata Verma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, stating 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 interim application was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the respondent authorities raising his grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Singh, a Constable in the Excise Department, challenged his transfer order dated June 24, 2022, from Bemetara to Rajnandgaon. He argued that he had served at his current posting for over three years and that the transfer violated the government'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 unless absolutely necessary. He further referred to 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 24, 2022, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, violates the government's transfer policy, specifically Clause 2.13 regarding the maximum percentage of employee transfers and the Finance Department's circular dated May 27, 2020, concerning financial discipline and necessity for transfers? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the transfer policy by exceeding the 10% limit for employee transfers and contravened the circular on financial discipline. He contended that the transfer was not absolutely necessary and that a significant number of employees (229 out of 250 constables) had been transferred, constituting 88% of the strength, which was a clear violation. He also relied on a coordinate bench's order in WPS No. 4480 of 2022, suggesting that individual grievances regarding transfers could be considered for interim relief. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel argued that a transfer policy does not confer any right upon an employee to remain posted at a particular place for their entire service period.