Government employee has no vested right to remain posted at place of his choice: CAT

Srinagar: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Wednesday ruled that “a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice”.

A division bench of M S Latif Member (J) and Prasant Kumar Member (A) held that “a government employee is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to another and has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice”.

The bench said this while disposing of a plea by an employee who was aggrieved of an order dated September 27, 2023, issued by the CEO Kupwara whereby he was transferred from Government High School Warnow, Lolab, and deployed to Government Boys Higher Secondary School Teetwal, Karnah with immediate effect till further orders.

And the order had been issued in the “interest of administration”.

“Interest of administration is a very wide term and it is for the employer to utilise the services of an employee, wherever he so chooses,” the bench said.

The court noted that “transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of his appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service”.

“No government can function if an employee insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he or she should continue in the same place or position,” the court said.

The counsel for the aggrieved employee contended that the Principal, Government High School, Warnow recommended the case of the applicant for his transfer as he created an unfavourable atmosphere among the staff which had severe consequences on the smooth functioning of the institution.

“The order impugned is punitive in nature, as such, the same deserves to be set aside,” he said.

“Maintenance of internal harmony in an institution is not a punishment as the same is essential for the growth of the organisation as a whole, particularly, in an educational institution,” the court said. “Law is beaten that the courts have a very limited power to interfere with the decision of an employer except otherwise on the grounds of malice or incompetence of the authority.”

The court observed that the “courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless the same is vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides”.

While the court underlined that bald assertions in the pleadings were not enough, in law, to allege mala fides against a competent authority, it said: “The same have to be substantiated and the person, against whom mala fides are alleged, has to be made a party in person and given a chance to rebut the allegations.”

About the contents of the application, the bench observed that no such incidence had been averred whereby it could have, prima facie, taken a view that the order under challenge was activated by any malice or otherwise.

It said that the court should not interfere with a transfer order, which was issued in the public interest and for administrative reasons.

Underscoring that the scope of judicial review in the matters of transfer was confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision of law, the bench said that the plea being meritless, deserved to be dismissed.

“However, the applicant is at liberty to submit a detailed representation before the respondent – competent authority, who shall decide the same on its merits and following the rules within two weeks from the date a copy of this order is served on him,” the bench said. “Till the representation is decided, the impugned order will remain stayed.”

However, the bench clarified that beyond the period of two weeks, the order impugned would turn ineffective.