Exercise Of Judicial Power Against Transfer Orders Restricted; Interference Warranted Only In Exceptional Circumstances: Orissa High Court
The High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is abridged when a writ of mandamus is sought against an order of transfer, and that courts, in ordinary circumstances, should refrain from interfering.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman, Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court held that the exercise of judicial power stands restricted when a challenge is laid to an order of transfer and that writ courts should not ordinarily interfere with such administrative decisions unless the transfer is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, discrimination, or is in contradiction with statutory rules or guidelines governing transfers.
The Court was hearing a writ appeal arising from an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court disposing of two writ petitions which had challenged an order of transfer described by the Department as a routine administrative transfer.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that “the exercise of judicial power is restricted and/or abridged when a mandamus against the order of transfer is sought for, unless the order of transfer is arbitrary, mala fide or in contradiction with the statutory rules or the guidelines framed in this regard and above all, actuated by malice or discriminatory in nature”.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar Mohanty, while the State of Odisha was represented by Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate.
Background
The matter arose out of an order of transfer issued by the State authorities, which resulted in a disruption of the transfer chain involving multiple officers. Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the transfer, including on the ground that the transfer should not have been effected when one of the officers was close to superannuation.
The Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions in a manner that disturbed the transfer chain, leading to a situation where one of the officers was neither permitted to continue at his existing post nor allowed to join the transferred post. As a result, the officer remained without a salary for several months.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench.
Court’s Observation
The High Court undertook an extensive review of settled principles governing judicial interference with transfer orders. While reiterating that any employee “posted at a particular place does not acquire an inchoate or a vested right to remain at such place”, it further reaffirmed that “transfer is an incident of service and ordinarily, the Court should not interfere against the order of transfer passed by the authorities”.
The Bench referred to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, including B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka (1986), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993), Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Odisha (1995), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan (2001), State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004), and Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (2020), all of which consistently hold that writ courts should not act as appellate authorities over transfer orders.
The Court emphasised that judicial interference is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a transfer order is patently arbitrary, actuated by malice, discriminatory in nature, or in flagrant violation of statutory provisions or binding rules governing transfers. Personal inconvenience, hardship, or proximity to retirement, the Court held, cannot by themselves justify interference under Article 226.
Reiterating the narrow scope of judicial review, the Bench cautioned that “the interference against the order of transfer in a routine manner creates an indirect impact of substituting its own view over the administrative decision and, therefore, the Court should not usurp the power of the administrative authorities as the management and the administration of the department should be left with the administrative authorities”.
At the same time, the Court took note of the peculiar hardship caused to one of the officers due to the impasse created by the earlier orders. It recorded that the State authorities had subsequently issued administrative directions resolving the situation by posting the officer to an appropriate place and restoring his service and financial benefits.
Conclusion
Taking note of the corrective administrative steps already taken, the Court refused interference but directed that the affected officer be permitted to join his posting and that all arrears of salary be released within the stipulated time.
The Court further directed that the intervening period during which the officer was unable to serve due to the administrative impasse be treated as continuity of service for all purposes, including pension.
With these observations and directions, the writ appeal was disposed of.
Cause Title: Arpan Kumar Pujari v. State of Odisha And Others
Appearances
Appellant: Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
Respondents: Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate; Rajeswari Das and Prangyan Panda, Advocates; Satyabrata Satapathy, Advocate
