STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus SRI S.S. KOURA V AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 19-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 
-r-
v. 
SRI S.S. KO URA V AND ORS. 
,• 
JANUARY 19, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Service Law-Transfer of Government officer on administrative 
_,,_ 
grounds-Q.uestion of expediency of posting at a particular place-Court not 
to interfere-Transfer during period of President's Rule-Approval of Advisor 
c to Governor obtained-Order of trans/ er zs valid-Question of relative 
hardship-Government to consider and take appropriate decision. 
The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Department of Water 
Resources of the Government came to be transferred on administrative 
D 
grounds. He challenged the order before the Administrative Tribunal. The 
~· 
Tribunal quashed the order on the ground that there was a ban imposed 
for transfer of the officers during the period of President's Rule until prior 
approval of the Governor was obtained which was not done in this case; 
therefore, the transfer without such approval was bad in law. This appeal 
had been filed challenging the Tribunal's order. 
E 
The State contended that the Advisor to the Governor had given his 
approval and then only the orders of transfer came to be issued. 
The respondent contended that he had already worked at Jagdalpur 
x, ~ 
from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no 
F justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. It was next contended 
that the approval of the Governor was a condition precedent and unless 
the Governor gave his approval, the order of transfer was bad in law. It 
was also alleged that the respondent would suffer extreme hardship if he 
had to work in the tribal area. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
........ 
HELD : 1.1. The courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to 
decide on transfers· of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of 
1.-
administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or 
H tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative 
482 
STATE OF M.P. v. S.S. KOUR.AV 
483 
system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the ad-
A 
-
ministration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand 
unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration 
without any factual background foundation. In this case on the ad-
ministrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, this 
Court could not decide into the expediency of posting an officer at a 
particular place. [484-H, 485-A] 
1.2. Under the business rules the powers of the Governor during 
emergency would be delegated to various officers to be exercised on his 
behalf. The Adviser (A.S.) had been given power to approve all the orders 
B 
of transfer and the Administrator had given his approval on 9.7.1973. C 
When he had given his approval, it should be deemed that, he acted on 
behalf of the Governor in exercising the statutory powers. Therefore, it was 
not necessary that the Governor should personally sign the orders. Under 
the business rules, only files in certain cases will be submitted to the 
Governor for his personal consideration but not all matters of administra-
tive routine. In this view, the transfer order being an administrative 
routine, delegation had been made to the Adviser (A.S.). Therefore, the 
order of transfer was perfectly legal. [485-C-D] 
1.3. This court cannot go into question of relative hardship. It would 
D 
be for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate E 
the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. If 
there is any such hardship, it would be open to the respondent to make a 
representation to the Government and it is for the Government to consider 
and take appropriate decision in that behalf. [ 485-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1285 of F 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.93 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A. No. B-489 of 1993. 
A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
G 
B.S. Banthia for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995J 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The respOnden~ is an Executive Engineer \\·orking in the Dcp~rtmcnt 
of Water Resources of the appellant-Government. He \\'Orked as A.;;sistant 
Engineer from 3.6.89 to 25.7.92 at Bhopal and after a short spell of sex 
months again he was transferred to . Bhopal in the pro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.