Holding

The transfer order is valid as the Advisor's approval, delegated under the business rules, suffices, and courts cannot interfere with administrative transfers absent malafide or extraneous considerations.

Summary

The respondent, an Executive Engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Water Resources Department, was transferred from Bhopal to Jagdalpur during President's Rule. He challenged the transfer before the Administrative Tribunal, which quashed it on the ground that a ban on transfers required prior approval of the Governor, which was allegedly not obtained. The State argued that the Advisor to the Governor had approved the transfer, and the Supreme Court held that such delegation of the Governor's powers under the business rules was valid, making the transfer order lawful. The Court further held that courts and tribunals are not appellate forums to question administrative transfers unless they are tainted by malafide or extraneous considerations, and it will not assess relative hardship, leaving that to the administration. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and upholding the transfer.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer order issued during President's Rule is invalid without the Governor's personal approval.
Whether the delegation of the Governor's approval authority to the Advisor under the business rules renders the transfer order valid.
Whether courts can interfere with administrative transfers on grounds of expediency or relative hardship.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Government Business Rules

Subjects

Transfer of government officerAdministrative lawPresident's RuleGovernor's approvalDelegation of powersJudicial reviewService lawRelative hardship

Judgment

A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
-r-
v.
SRI S.S. KO URA V AND ORS.
,•
JANUARY 19, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Service Law-Transfer of Government officer on administrative _,,_
grounds-Q.uestion of expediency of posting at a particular place-Court not
to interfere-Transfer during period of President's Rule-Approval of Advisor
c to Governor obtained-Order of trans/er zs valid-Question of relative
hardship-Government to consider and take appropriate decision.

The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Department of Water
Resources of the Government came to be transferred on administrative
grounds. He challenged the order before the Administrative Tribunal. The
D Tribunal quashed the order on the ground that there was a ban imposed ~·
for transfer of the officers during the period of President's Rule until prior
approval of the Governor was obtained which was not done in this case;
therefore, the transfer without such approval was bad in law. This appeal
had been filed challenging the Tribunal's order.
E
The State contended that the Advisor to the Governor had given his
approval and then only the orders of transfer came to be issued.

The respondent contended that he had already worked at Jagdalpur x, ~
from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no
F justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. It was next contended
that the approval of the Governor was a condition precedent and unless
the Governor gave his approval, the order of transfer was bad in law. It
was also alleged that the respondent would suffer extreme hardship if he
had to work in the tribal area.
G Allowing the appeal, this Court
........
HELD : 1.1. The courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to
decide on transfers· of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of 1.-
administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or
H tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative
482
STATE OF M.P. v. S.S. KOUR.AV 483

system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the ad- A
- ministration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand
unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration
without any factual background foundation. In this case on the ad-
ministrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, this
Court could not decide into the expediency of posting an officer at a
particular place. [484-H, 485-A]
B

1.2. Under the business rules the powers of the Governor during
emergency would be delegated to various officers to be exercised on his
behalf. The Adviser (A.S.) had been given power to approve all the orders
of transfer and the Administrator had given his approval on 9.7.1973. C
When he had given his approval, it should be deemed that, he acted on
behalf of the Governor in exercising the statutory powers. Therefore, it was
not necessary that the Governor should personally sign the orders. Under
the business rules, only files in certain cases will be submitted to the
Governor for his personal consideration but not all matters of administra-
tive routine. In this view, the transfer order being an administrative D
routine, delegation had been made to the Adviser (A.S.). Therefore, the
order of transfer was perfectly legal. [485-C-D]

1.3. This court cannot go into question of relative hardship. It would
be for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate E
the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. If
there is any such hardship, it would be open to the respondent to make a
representation to the Government and it is for the Government to consider
and take appropriate decision in that behalf. [485-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1285 of F
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.93 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A. No. B-489 of 1993.

A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. G
B.S. Banthia for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995J 1 S.C.R.

A The respOnden~ is an Executive Engineer \\·orking in the Dcp~rtmcnt
of Water Resources of the appellant-Government. He \\'Orked as A.;;sistant
Engineer from 3.6.89 to 25.7.92 at Bhopal and after a short spell of sex
months again he was transferred to . Bhopal in the promoted post of
Ex<;cutive Engineer and he continued at Bhopal from 19.10.92 to 9.7.93.
B The Department initiated orders of transfer at the instance of the Chief
Engineer. The respondent came to be transferred from Bhopal to Jagdal-
pur vide proceedings dated 9.7.93. He challenged the correctness thereof
by filing OA No. 489/93 before the Admmistrative Tribunal at Bhopal.
The Tribunal by its order dated 7.8.93 allowed the application, quashed ------
the order of transfer and directed that it would be to the Government to
C pass appropriate orders for transfer on the· administrative grounds as per
rules and law. It has also directed that the respondent would not be
transferred durmg the period of ban. Callmg in question the above order,
this appeal, by special leave, came to be filed.

D The main ground on which the Tribunal quashed the order of
transfer was that since there was a ban wposed for transfer of the officers
during the period of President's Rule until prior approval of the Governor
was obtained which was not done in this case. Therefore, the transfer
without such approval is bad in law. The learned counsel appearmg for the
State has placed before us the ·proceedings of transfer initiated in File No.
E 3(B)/160/93/P/3l which would show that on the recommendation made by
the Chief Engineer, the respondent was proposed to be transferred as
Executive Engineer from Hydromaterology Division at Bhopal to the office
of the Supdtg. Engineer, W.R. Circle, Jagdalpur in a vaeant post. When it
was submitted to the Secretary, after giving approval, the Secretary
F despatched the file to the Advisor to the Governor. The Adviser to the
Governor has given his approval on 9.7.93 and on the same day the orders
of transfer came to be issued.

It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had already
worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was trasferred to
G Bhopal, there was no justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We ..
cannot appreciate these grounds. The courts or Tribunals are not appellate
forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The
wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts
or tnbunals are not expected to interdict the working of the aclminiStrative
H system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for t.he administra-
I
i
STATEOFM.P.i·. S.S. KOURAV 485

tion to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they A
are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any
factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the
administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore,
we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.

It is next contended that the approval of the Governor is a condition B
procedent. Unless the Governor gives his approval, the order to transfer
is bad in law. We find no force in the contention. Under the business rules
the powers of the Governor during emergency would be delegated to
various officers to be exercised on his behalf. We have seen the proceed-
ings that the papers have been placed before the Adviser (A.S.). Obviously, C
the Adviser (A.S.) had been given power to approve all the orders of
transer and the Administrator had given his approval on 9.7.1993. When
he had given his approval, it should be deemed that he acted on behalf of
the Governor in exercising the statutory powers. Therefore, it is not neces-
sary that the Governor should personally sign the orders. Under the
business rules only files in certain cases will be submitted to the Governor D
for his personal consideration but not all matters of administrative routine.
In this view, the transfer order being an administrative routine, delegation
has been made to the Adviser (AS.). Thererfore, the order of transfer is
perfectly legal and valid.
E
It is further contended that in an unfortunate situation the
respondent's wife committed suicide leaving three children and he would
suffer extreme hardship if has to work in the tribal area. This court cannot
go into that question of relative hardship. It would be for the administration
to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the
interest of good and efficient administrator. If there is any such hardship, F
it would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the
Government and it is for the Government to consider and take appropriate
decision in that behalf.

The appeai is accordingly allowed hut, in the circumstances, without G
costs.

A.G. Appeal allowed.