Blog

Case title: Sri Pubi Lombi Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr.

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4129 OF 2024

Decided on: 13.04.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involved a transfer order of Sri Pubi Lombi, the appellant, from the Government Higher Secondary School (GHSS) Kanubari. The transfer was based on a U.O. Note from the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the Basar(ST) Assembly Constituency. The appellant challenged the transfer order, alleging malafide exercise of power. The Single Judge upheld the transfer, but the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Jurisdiction of High Courts for issuing writs.

Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357: Scope of judicial review and the need to implead persons against whom allegations of malafide are made.

State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC 2486: Employer’s discretion in transferring public servants.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant, Sri Pubi Lombi, contended that the transfer order based on the MLA’s note was a result of an arbitrary exercise of power. The appellant argued that the transfer was not in the exigencies of service or public interest but was solely based on the MLA’s recommendation. The appellant challenged the transfer order, alleging that it was not supported by administrative exigencies or reasons justifying the cancellation of the earlier transfer order.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents, including the State of Arunachal Pradesh, supported the contention that the modified transfer order was passed in public interest after due consideration of the MLA’s U.O. Note. They argued that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge. The respondents emphasized that the transfer was made after the application of mind and in the interest of public service, contrary to the appellant’s claims of arbitrariness.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court analyzed the principles laid down in previous cases regarding the scope of judicial review in transfer matters. It emphasized that judicial interference in transfer orders is not warranted unless there are allegations of malafide, violation of statutory provisions, or if the transfer is detrimental to the employee holding a transferrable post. The court noted that the appellant’s plea of malafide against the transferring authority was not agitated before the court, and there was no violation of any prescribed statutory provision.

Based on these considerations, the court held that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The court allowed the Civil Appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restoring the order of the Single Judge dated 11.07.2023. The court concluded that the transfer order was not issued in the exigencies of service or public interest but was a result of an arbitrary exercise of power, supporting the appellant’s contention.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement.