Vijay S/O Wamanrao Kamble vs Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Mali
- SCC(2018) 12 SCC 201
- Neutral2017 INSC 1085
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Government servant is transferred inter-district under Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, such transfer cannot be made if it affects the promotion prospects of employees already working in the transferee district, even where the transferring employee belongs to a reserved category. Section 4(5), which permits transfer before completion of the normal tenure of three years in special cases, operates only to authorize early transfer of an individual employee and does not permit the Government to effect an inter-district transfer that adversely impacts the advancement opportunities of qualified candidates waiting for promotion in the transferee district.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18815 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12955 OF 2017]
VIJAY S/O WAMANRAO KAMBLE Appellant (s)
VERSUS
DNYANESHWAR MAHADEO MALI & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Inter-District transfer in Revenue Service in the
State of Maharashtra has given rise to this
litigation. Finding that the transfer of the
appellant has affected the promotion of people
already working in the transferred district, namely
Latur, the High Court intervened and set aside the
transfer.
3. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court.
It has been the contention of the appellant that by
his transfer from Hingoli to Latur, nobody had been
affected since he belonged to the Scheduled Caste Signature Not Verified
category. It was also submitted that the transfer is Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.11.18 11:24:40 IST Reason:
made by the Government in exercise of its power under
Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants 2
Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in
Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. Section 4(5)
is reproduced as under :-
“Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or this section the competent authority may, in special cases, after recording reasons in writing and with the prior [approval of the immediately superior] Transferring Authority mentioned in the table of section 6, transfer a Government servant before completion of his tenure of post.”
4. The provision does not enable the Government or
the competent authority to make an inter-district
transfer affecting the chance of others.
Sub-section 5 of Section 4, as extracted above,
pertains only to transfer before completion of
tenure, which we find from Section 3 as three years.
The appellant was a Senior Clerk in Hingoli district
and by transferring him to Latur district, the Clerks
who have been waiting for promotion are certainly
affected.
5. We find from the data furnished before this Court
that there are people qualified in the respective
category, who have been waiting for promotion as
Senior Clerk.
3
6. Be that as it may, Section 4(5) is not an
enabling provision for the Government to make
inter-district transfer affecting the chance of
people already working in the transferee districts.
The provision, subject to its riders therein, only
enables the authority to transfer an employee before
completion of the normal period of three years.
The District Collector, in the detailed affidavit
filed before this Court on 03.11.2017, has submitted
that there was no vacancy available in Latur so as to
accommodate the appellant without affecting anybody
in the district.
7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the
appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
November 07, 2017.
4
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12955/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-03-2017 in WP No. 8569/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad)
VIJAY S/O WAMANRAO KAMBLE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DNYANESHWAR MAHADEO MALI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.114550/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 07-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR Mr. Yuvaraj Baburao Gaikwad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free