Employee has no 'vested right' to claim choice of posting: SC

New Delhi, Aug 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court has held that a
government servant has no "vested right" to claim a choice of
posting nor can courts enter into the credentials of a
transferred employee as the same is the prerogative of the
government.

A bench of justices Tarun Chatterjee and R M Lodha
expressed anguish at the manner in which the Allahabad High
Court had ordered transfer of an employee on the ground that
he had a bad reputation.

"A government servant has no vested right to remain
posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must
be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be
transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place
to other.

"Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent
in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential
condition of service in the absence of any specific indication
to the contrary. No government can function if the government
servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular
place or position, should continue in such place or position
as long as one desires," the apex court observed.

The apex court passed the observation while upholding an
appeal filed by Rajendra Singh, a sub-registrar, challenging
the direction of the High Court to transfer him to Hapur from
Ghaziabad on the petition of his contemporary Karvendra Singh.

Karvendra Singh had moved the high court on the ground
that he was actually working at Ghaziabad and questioned
Rajendra Singh's transfer to the place on the ground that he
had a "dubious reputation."

The high court on the basis of Karvendra's petition
directed Rajendra's transfer by taking the view that he had a
bad reputation. It, however, upheld the transfer of Karvendra.
Aggrieved, both the employees approached the apex court.

The apex court wondered as to why the High Court while
dealing with the legality of a transfer went into the question
of an employee's credentials which was the job of government.

"The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the
transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by
violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala
fides.

"It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went into
the comparative conduct and integrity of the petitioner
(Karvendra) and respondent No 5 (Rajendra) while dealing with
a transfer matter. The High Court should have appreciated the
true extent of scrutiny into a matter of transfer and the
limited scope of judicial review," the apex court said.

The SC said it was for the state government or for that
matter Inspector General of Registration to decide about the
place of posting of the sub-registrars.

"We are pained to observe that the High Court seriously
erred in deciding as to whether respondent No 5 was a
competent person to be posted at Ghaziabad-IV as
sub-registrar.

The exercise undertaken by the High Court did not fall
within its domain and was rather uncalled for," the bench
said.

According to the bench, the High Court entered into an
arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed serious
error of law.

"The only question required to be seen was whether
transfer of respondent No 5 was actuated with malafides or
otherwise in violation of statutory rules.

The transfer of respondent No. 5 was not found to suffer
from any of these vices. The High Court went into the
competence and suitability of respondent No 5 for such
posting. It is here that the High Court fell into a grave
error.

"As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the High
Court casts stigma in the service of respondent No 5 which
may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal
against the adverse remarks," the apex court while allowing
the appeal filed by Rajendra and dismissing the cross appeal
of Karvendra. PTI RB
JVN
NNNN