Holding

The transfer order was valid, not mala fide, and the High Court's order setting it aside was set aside.

Summary

G. Venkata Ratnam, a Technical Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh Department of Archaeology and Museums, was transferred from Hyderabad to Kakinada in 2005 after serving 20 years at the head office. He challenged the transfer before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his applications, and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court set aside the transfer order, holding it was not bona fide and criticizing the State officers with caustic remarks. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the transfer did not violate any statutory rule and was not mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the transfer was a valid administrative act, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and that the High Court's findings were unfounded. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, dismissed the writ petition, and allowed the State's appeal. The Court also noted that the State was willing to reconsider the posting, but no further order was required.

Issues considered

Whether the transfer order of a government employee violated any statutory provisions or was made mala fide.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the transfer order on the ground of lack of bona fides.
To what extent courts can interfere with administrative decisions concerning transfers of government officers.

Subjects

TransferService lawAdministrative lawBona fideJudicial restraintState government employeeHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R 61

THE GOVERNMENT OF A P. A
v.
G. VENKATA RATNAM
(Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 2008)
JULY 21. 2008
B
[TARUN
' .
CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB
.
ALAM,
.
JJ]
Service Law:
Transfer- Order set aside by High Court- HELD: Order
of.transfer neither suffers from violation of any statutory rules C
nor can it be described as mala fide - High Court's finding
regarding lack of bona fide on the part of State Government is
completely unfounded and untenable - Legal position regard-
ing interference by courts in matters of transfer is well estab-
lished-:- Order of High Court set aside. , o
.• ·Judicial restraint:
High Court - While setting aside an employee's transfer
order commenting about Government Officers - HELD: Highly
caustic comments about Government Officers made in the E
judgment by High Court appear to be completely uncalled for
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISD.ICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4582
of ?008.

From the final Judgment dated 23.2.2007 of the High Court F
o.f ~udicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 2886/
2006
.· · · · ·A: Fatima (for Mrs. D. Bharthi Reddy) for the Appellant.
~.,, .
. - .9. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byraparieni and G
Siddharth Patnaik for the Respondent.
·The following Order of the Court was delivered
, Leave granted.

61 H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A· Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent is a Technic.al Assistant in the Department
of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
He was posted in the Office of Director, Archaeology and Mu-
B seums, Hyderabad, where he was able to stay, since his ap-
pointment in the year 1985,. uninterrupte?gly for a period of 20
years. He was transferred from Hyderabad' a-nd posted in the
Office of the Assistant Director (Technical), Archaeology and
Mu~eums, Kakinada by an order issued by the Director on 29
Jun.e, 2005. He challenged his transfer orper before theAndhra
C Pradesh Administrative Trib.unal in 0. A. No. 3050 of 2005. ;At
that time his appeal filed· before· the· departmental ·authorities
was pending. Hence, the Tribunal disposed of the app.lication
by order dated 4 July, 2005 with a direction fo the concerned
departmental authority to dispose of. the appeal Within four
D weeks. The departmental appeal was finally dismissed by or-
der dated 3 August, 2005. The respondent once again ap-
proached the Tribunal in 0. A. No. 4048 of 2005 but the Tribu-
natdediriecfto interfe!e in the matter and dismissed the O.A.
by order dated 27 Decem_ber, 200~.
F
,, The respondent took the challenge to his transfer order to
the And hr.a Pradesh tligh Court in Writ Petition No.2886 of 2006.
The High Cou·rt allowed the writ petition and set aside the order
of the respondent's transfer by judgment and order dated 23
F February, 2007: The State has come in appeal again.st the judg-
ment :and order passed by the High.Court. - .
The High Court judgment is wholly untenable and, we re-
gret to.say, it is rather.unusual andstrange. Thejudgment was
apparently delivered jn anger. The anger might have been
G caused bithe Governrnent Pleader or the Director (the second
respondent before the High c·ourt) but as a result the Court not
only lost the judicial poise and restraint but also arrived at com-
pletely unfounded conclusions. The judgment quotes a passage
from William Dalrymple's book, 'The Last Mughal' ·about how
H the Red Fort at Delhi was vandalized by the British and hew the
THE GOVERNMENT OF A. P. v. G. VENKATA 63
RATNAM
~
damages of the colonial times are perpetuated by the Archaeo- A
logical Survey Of India. One fails to see how the Red Fort, the
maintenance of which the Government of Andhra Pradesh is
not even remotely connected with, comes into all this. The ref-
erence to the plight of the Red Fort is followed by the observa-
tion that the ancient monuments and archaeological sites in B
.. Andhra Pradesh too are in no better state. In this way the Court
declares that the agencies and the people entrusted with the
responsibility to preserve and maintain the country's historical
heritage are quite incapable and inefficient in the discharge of
the responsibility. But once again we fail to see the relevance c
of all this to the simple issue before the Court. Unfortunately this
is not the only incongruity. The judgment makes, at more than
one place, highly caustic comments about Government Offic-
ers, especially the members of the Central Civil Service, which
in the facts and circumstances of the case appear to us to be D
completely uncalled for.
The Court seems to have been completely taken in by the
ipse dixit of the respondent and his tall claims about his own
ability and virtually allowed him to choose his own place of post-
ing. The judgment at its beginning recounts the respondent's E
qualifications that include two Master's degrees, one in San-
skrit and the other in Archaeology, a B. Ed. degree in Sanskrit
and the degree of Sahitya Shiromani from Sri Venkateswara
University. The judgment then proceeds to observe as follows:
F
"The petitioner as it appears from the pleadings is a highly
). qualified man. The confidence with which he made
assertion in the affidavit dated 13.3.2006 to the effect that
'if any other employee has my skill, knowledge, expertise
and experience I forego my job' makes this Court examine
this matter in depth and not treat the impugned order as G
a mere order of transfer in the course of administration."

-<:
It further observes as follows:-
"The petitionc:r asserted in his affidavit dated 13.3.2006
that he ha~ F roertise in deciphering early Rock and Stone H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
...J
A and Copper Plates inscriptions in Brahmi, early Telugu
and Kannada, Nagari, Tamil and Tamil Grandha. He further
asserted that other than the petitioner that no other
employee in the entire Archaeology Department with the
expertise, knowledge or experience in these matter and
B that his services are required more at the head office."
1'- 1-
The Court then purports to remind itself that transfer is an
incidence of service and is not to be lightly interfered with. It
proceeds to elaborate that.this judicial policy is based on two
reasons, one the continuance of an employee of the State Gov-
c ernment at one particular place for a long time is likely to create
undesirable consequences .like creation of vested interests and
._
misuse of the powe·r that comes with the employment under the
State and the other being the exigencies of the administration
requiring the service of a particular person at a particular place.
\
~

D It then proceeds to explain away that the first reason, that is, the
undesirability of stay at anyone place for a long time should not
i
apply to the case ofthe respondent because in Archaeology, in
any event one worked in ancient times and dealt with 'the dry .
bones of history'.
E I
The Court then went on to hold that the respondent's trans-
('
fer was also not made in administrative exigencies. For arriv-
ing at this finding the Court refers to the catalogues of manu-
scripts, in different languages that are kept in Hyderabad and
in Kakinada and accepts the petitioner's assertion that with his
·F
knowledge and ability he is niost suited to work at the head
office in Hyderabad than in any other place in the State. The ;*.

Court refers to the respondent's assertion in his affidavit that in
th.e entire Archaeology Department there is no other employee
equaling him in expertise, knowledge and experience in these
G matters and that his services are required more at the head
office and points out that in the counter affidavit filed by the Di-
rector there was no express contradiction of the assertion. It is )_
observed as follows:- >-

H
"She is conspicuously silent about the nature of the work ~
l
THE GOVERNMENT OF A. P. v. G. VENKATA 65
~
RATNAM

that is required to be carried at the State Museum at A
Hyderabad and also whether there is any other person
who is qualified to carry on the said work."
Lastly, the Court finds that in the original proposal for trans-
fer made by the Director the respondent's place of posting was
B
_.t shown as Kurnool. The Court observes that there was no expla-
nation why the respondent was finally transferred to Kakinada
in place of Kurnool. On these materials, the Court came to the
conclusion that the transfer of the respondent was clearly not
bona fide, to say the least.
c
We are surprised to see the High Court castigating the
respondent's transfer order as lacking in bona fide on such
flimsy and fanciful pleas advanced by the respondent. We are
more than satisfied that the High Court's finding regarding lack
of bona fide in the matter on the part of the State Government is D
completely unfounded and untenable. The legal position regard-
j >: ing i.nterference by Courts in the matter of transfer is too well
established to be repeated here. The respondent's transfer
neither suffers from violation of any statutory rules nor can it be
described as mala fide by any stretch of imagination. We are,
E
accordingly, unable to sustain the High Court's order. In the re-
suit this appeal is allowed, the order coming under challenge is
set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the
High Court is dismissed.
At the conclusion of the hearing of the case, counsel for F
jt the respondent stated that the Government had reconsidered
the matter. It was willing to bring back the respondent to
Hyderabad and an order to that effect was likely to be issued.
We have got nothing to say in the matter.
R.P. Appeal allowed.

--(