Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Vijay S/O Wamanrao Kamble vs Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Mali

Supreme Court7 November 2017Kurian Joseph · R. Banumathi

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

1

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