Introduction

The Judgment in KISHORE BISWAL v. UNION OF INDIA, delivered by the Orissa High Court on January 21, 2025, addresses critical issues regarding the rights of employees in relation to their postings within government establishments. At the crux of the dispute was the petitioner’s claim that his qualifications warranted a specific posting in the Postal Assistant (PA) cadre at Circle Office, Bhubaneswar, as per his submitted option. The petition challenged the administrative decision that instead placed him in the Postal Assistant role in a different division, arguing that the decision was based on alleged deficiencies in his administrative knowledge.

The central parties in the dispute include the petitioner, Kishore Biswal, a former Off-set Machine Assistant at the Postal Printing Press, and the respondents, namely the Union of India and associated government authorities. The petitioner’s grievance revolved around his belief that the administrative authorities had wrongly bypassed his clearly stated posting preference despite his higher qualifications compared to others who were absorbed at Circle Office.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tribunal, considering the representations and evidence, ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition. The court held that:

• The petitioner failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence proving his superior administrative knowledge compared to his colleagues.
• The allegations referenced by the petitioner—including the administrative reports—were not adequately substantiated as the sole factors affecting his non-posting to the preferred location.
• Once the petitioner was posted as a Postal Assistant in the Bhubaneswar Division, even in the same pay scale as his original role, his grievance substantially diminished.
• Citing established precedents, it was held that posting and transfer decisions lie within the exclusive domain of the competent authorities and do not constitute a violation of any vested rights, unless they are arbitrary or an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power.

As a result, the court upheld the administrative decision and ruled that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively referenced two notable precedents:

• Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 532): This case established that an employee holding a transferable post does not have a vested right to be posted at any specific place. The court underscored that posting orders issued by competent authorities do not impinge upon the legal rights of an employee.
• State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2165): This precedent reinforced that employee transfers and postings are inherent to the terms of service and can be adjusted based upon administrative exigencies unless there is evidence of a mala fide exercise of power or contravention of statutory provisions.

Both precedents played a pivotal role in affirming that the petitioner’s claim—a reliance on a specific posting preference as a right—was misplaced. The court leaned on these established principles to demonstrate that administrative discretion in posting matters is both lawful and essential for meeting broader operational requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was anchored in the principle that the posting or transfer of an employee is an administrative decision reserved for the competent authority. The key points in the legal reasoning include:

• Absence of Documented Superiority: The petitioner was unable to furnish documentary evidence that his administrative acumen was superior to that of the other employees who were posted at Circle Office.
• Judicial Deference to Administrative Discretion: The court emphasized that posting decisions are part of the inherent administrative competence and that an employee, by virtue of holding a transferable post, does not possess an absolute entitlement to a particular location or role.
• Subordination of Grievance Upon Reassignment: Given that the petitioner had been reassigned as a Postal Assistant in the Bhubaneswar Division—with a commensurate pay scale—his claim was deemed to have lost its immediacy and relevance.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the autonomy of administrative authorities in determining the optimal deployment of their personnel. The decision is likely to have broad implications:

• It will deter employees from claiming a vested right to a specific posting, thereby granting administrative authorities greater leeway in personnel management.
• Future disputes concerning postings and transfers within government departments may reference this judgment, particularly when an employee challenges a posting decision without substantive evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide conduct.
• The reliance on well-established Supreme Court precedents will fortify the legal position of administrative decisions, ensuring consistency in judicial handling of similar disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terminologies and concepts in the Judgment have broader implications:

• Vested Right: This refers to a legally enforceable entitlement that an employee cannot unilaterally claim or enforce. The judgment underscores that employees in transferable posts do not have a vested right to be positioned at a particular location.
• Administrative Exigency: This term encompasses the practical necessities and operational requirements dictating personnel placement. The court accepted that posting decisions are heavily influenced by these exigencies, which can override individual preferences.
• Mala Fide: Meaning “in bad faith,” this concept is critical when determining whether an administrative decision was taken arbitrarily or with improper intent. In this case, no evidence pointed to a mala fide exercise of power.

Conclusion

The Judgment in KISHORE BISWAL v. UNION OF INDIA serves as a reaffirmation of the legal principle that posting and transfer decisions remain within the rightful authority of the administrative bodies. The case clearly illustrates that an employee cannot claim a privilege to a particular posting simply on the basis of personal preference or assumed qualification superiority without concrete evidence.

By carefully applying established precedents and reinforcing the doctrine of administrative discretion, the court has provided clear guidance for both employees and administrators regarding the limits of judicial intervention in personnel management decisions. This decision is significant in that it potentially curtails challenges against postings based solely on perceived inequities, thereby supporting efficient public administration.