UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus H.N. KIRTANIA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 12-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
,,,-~ 
v. 
H.N. KIRTANIA 
JULY U,1989 
B 
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
)>"' 
Service law-Transferable post-Government servant-Whether 
has a legal right of posting at a place of choice-Transfer-Interference 
with by Courts. 
t -
<;: 
The respondent, a Central Government officer, who was transfer· 
red from Calcutta to Jaipur, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and 
a learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction against the trans· -1 
fer order and a direction to the appellants to allow the respondent to 
join duty at Calcutta. The stay application filed by the appellants was 
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence these appeals 
D by the Union of India. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: Transfer of a public servant made on administrative 
~. 
grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless 
E thl(re are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order 
illeg11I on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala 
fides. [396B-C J 
In the instant, case, the respondent being a Central Government 
employee held a transferable post and was liable to be transferred 
F from one place to the other in the country. He has no legal right to insist 
for his posting at a place of his choice. Therefore there was no good ~· 
ground for the High Court for interfering with the respondent's 
transfer. [396A·B·Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
<ii 
2943-45 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.86, 11.10.85, & 
¥~ 
12.4.85, of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 4054/85 C.R. 
No. 15253(W)/85 & C.O. No. 6078(W)/1985. 
H 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Shar111a, 
394 
- f 
• 
U.0.1. v. H.N. KIRTANIA 
395 
C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. 
A 
Girish Chandra for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
B 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
These three appeals are directed against three orders of the C 
Calcutta High Court dated 12.4.1985, 11.10.1985 and 24.1.1986. 
H.N. Kirtania, respondent is in the employment of the Central 
Government, under the Central Passport Organisation. At the rele-
vant period he was posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional 
Passport Office, Calcutta. He was transferred from Regional Passport D 
Office, Calcutta to Jaipur under an order dated 14.9.1985. He was 
relieved from Regional Passport Office, Calcutta on 15.3.1985 with a 
direction to report for duty to the Regional Passport Office, Jaipur. 
He did not join his duty at Jaipur instead he proceeded on leave for a 
month. During the period, he was on leave the respondent filed a writ 
petition in the Calcutta High Court assailing the validity of his trans-
E 
fer. A learned single Judge issued order on 12.4.1985 restraining the 
Central Government authorities from giving effect to the order of 
transfer and release. An application for vacating the interim order was 
filed on behalf of the appellant but the same was not disposed of. In 
the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated against ihe 
authorities at the instance of the respondent on the allegation that he 
F 
was not allowed to rejoin his duty at Calcutta in pursuance to. the 
interim injunction. A learned single Judge by his order dated 
U.10.1985 issued rule for contempt to the appellants and further 
issued interim direction for paying all arrears of salary to the respon-
dent within three weeks. The appellants filed an appeal before a Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court against the aforesaid order alongwith an 
G 
interim stay application. The interim stay application was dismissed by 
a Division Bench of the High Court on 24.1.1986. In view of these 
orders the transfer order could not be implemented and the respon-
dent continued to stay at Calcutta. 
After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not find any 
H 
':~":~''·:1
'"l1
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition 
against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central 
Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid 
justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Govern-
ment. The respondent being a Central Government employee held a 
B transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to 
the other in the country, he has no legal right to insist for his posting at 
Calcutta or at any other place of 

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