- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of M.P And Another v. S.S Kourav And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the appellant-State, served in Bhopal as an Assistant Engineer from 3 June 1989 to 25 July 1992. After a six-month interval, he was promoted to Executive Engineer and again posted to Bhopal from 19 October 1992 to 9 July 1993. Acting on a recommendation from the Chief Engineer, the Department transferred him from Bhopal to Jagdalpur on 9 July 1993. The respondent challenged this transfer in OA No. 489/1993 before the Administrative Tribunal at Bhopal. On 7 August 1993 the Tribunal quashed the transfer, holding that prior approval of the Governor—required during President’s Rule—had not been obtained, and restrained any further transfer during the prevailing ban. The State appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s transfer during President’s Rule was invalid for want of personal approval by the Governor.
- Whether courts or tribunals may interfere with administrative transfer orders based on claims of hardship or prior postings absent proof of mala fides or extraneous considerations.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-State’s Arguments
- The transfer was made on administrative grounds at the instance of the Chief Engineer.
- The file discloses that the Adviser to the Governor approved the transfer on 9 July 1993, exercising powers delegated under the business rules; hence specific signature by the Governor was unnecessary.
- Courts and tribunals should not act as appellate bodies over routine administrative transfers.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The transfer violated the ban on officers’ transfers during President’s Rule because it lacked the Governor’s prior approval.
- Having already served at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989, retransferring him there was unjustified.
- Following his wife’s suicide, relocation to a tribal area would impose extreme personal hardship while he cares for three children.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the transfer file (No. 3(B)/160/93.P/31) and found that the Secretary forwarded the proposal to the Adviser to the Governor, who granted approval on 9 July 1993—the same day the transfer order issued. During President’s Rule, the business rules permit delegation of the Governor’s functions; the Adviser’s approval therefore constitutes approval “on behalf of” the Governor. Consequently, the Tribunal’s view that the transfer lacked requisite approval was incorrect.
The Court reaffirmed that decisions on posting and transfer lie within the executive’s administrative domain. Judicial interference is warranted only upon proof of mala fides or extraneous considerations, none of which were shown here. As to the respondent’s asserted hardship, the Court held that such matters are for the administration to assess; the respondent may submit a representation to the Government for relief, but the judiciary will not substitute its judgment on transfer logistics.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside. The respondent’s transfer to Jagdalpur stands validated.
The decision affirms that, during President’s Rule, approval by an authorised Adviser acting under delegated powers is legally sufficient. It underscores the limited scope of judicial review over routine administrative transfers, confirming that courts will not intervene absent mala fides or extraneous factors. No new precedent was set beyond clarifying the delegation principle and deference to administrative discretion.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent is an Executive Engineer working in the Department of Water Resources of the appellant-Government. He worked as Assistant Engineer from 3-6-1989 to 25-7-1992 at Bhopal and after a short spell of six months again he was transferred to Bhopal in the promoted post of Executive Engineer and he continued at Bhopal from 19-10-1992 to 9-7-1993. The Department initiated orders of transfer at the instance of the Chief Engineer. The respondent came to be transferred from Bhopal to Jagdalpur vide proceedings dated 9-7-1993. He challenged the correctness thereof by filing OA No. 489 of 1993 before the Administrative Tribunal at Bhopal. The Tribunal by its order dated 7-8-1993 allowed the application, quashed the order of transfer and directed that it would be open to the Government to 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 during the period of ban. Calling in question the above order, this appeal, by special leave, came to be filed.
3. The main ground on which the Tribunal quashed the order of transfer was that since 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 is bad in law. The learned counsel appearing for the State has placed before us the proceedings of transfer initiated in File No. 3(B)/160/93.P/31 which would show that on the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer, the respondent was proposed to be transferred as Executive Engineer from Hydromateorology Division at Bhopal to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, W.R Circle, Jagdalpur in a vacant post. When it was submitted to the Secretary, after giving approval, the Secretary despatched the file to the Adviser to the Governor. The Adviser to the Governor has given his approval on 9-7-1993 and on the same day the orders of transfer came to be issued.
4. It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had already worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to 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 tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides 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.
5. It is next contended that the approval of the Governor is a condition precedent. Unless the Governor gives his approval, the order of 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 proceedings that the papers have been placed before the Adviser (AS). Obviously, the Adviser (AS) had been given power to approve all the orders of transfer 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 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 administrative routine. In this view, the transfer order being an administrative routine, delegation has been made to the Adviser (AS). Therefore, the order of transfer is perfectly legal and valid.
6. 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 he 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 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.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Alert