Dr. Madhubrata Satpathy v. State of Odisha and others
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 1515. Referring to Shilpi Bose case (supra) and Gujurat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 (2) SLR 684 (SC), it is held that a judicial review of an administrative action is of course permissible, but orders of transfer are interfered when:- a. the transfer…
Judgment
#3. Let an extra copy of the Writ Petition be served on learned State Counsel in course of the day. He is directed to obtain instruction as to the reason for passing of the order by the Principal-O.P. No.2 on 24.02.2024 vide Annexure-8.
#4. As requested, list this matter on 19.03.2024. I.A. No.3060 of 2024 In
#1. 24.02.2024 so passed by Annexure-8 be kept in abeyance.” interim, operation of order dated the O.P. No.2 under // 5 // “ W.P.(C) No.5267 of 2024
#1. This matter Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. taken up through Hybrid
#2. Memo containing application dated 23.02.2024 produced before this Court be kept in record.
#3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
#4. Let an extra copy of the Writ Petition be served on learned State Counsel in course of the day. He is directed to obtain instruction as to the reason for putting the petitioner under transfer when the order passed by the Principal on 24.02.2024 vide Annexure- 8 was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4704 of 2024.
#5. As requested, list this matter on 19.03.2024. I.A. No.3355 of 2024
#1. Till the next date, status-quo as on today with regard to continuance of the petitioner be maintained.”
4.7. It is contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2024, petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duty in BJB (Auto) College, Bhubaneswar and accordingly an application was filed in I.A. No.4175 of 2024. This Court vide order dated
02.04.2024, directed learned State Counsel to obtain instruction on the plea made in I.A. No.4175 of 2024. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on earlier occasion and on 02.04.2024, instruction provided by the Department vide letter dated 15.04.2024 was produced by the learned State Counsel in Court today. The same be kept in record. // 6 //
4.8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accordingly contended that since petitioner challenged the action of O.P. No.2 in issuing the order issued on
24.02.2024 under Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No.4704 of 2024, at the instance of O.P. No.2, O.P. No.1 with malafide intention transferred her vide Notification dtd.02.03.2024. The order of transfer so issued vide Notification dtd.02.03.2024 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.5267 of 2024.
4.9. It is contended that on the face of the order issued on 07.10.2022 under Annexure-3, prior to its recalling & cancellation by O.P. No.1, O.P. No.2 was not competent to relieve her from the additional responsibility of Vice- Principal-In-Charge vide order dated 24.02.2024 under Annexure-8. Petitioner when challenged such action of O.P. No.2 in filing W.P.(C) No.4704 of 2024, at the instance of O.P. No.2 and with malafide intention, petitioner was put under transfer by O.P. No.1 vide Notification dtd.02.03.2024.
4.10. It is also contended that order of transfer can be interfered with by this Court, if it has been issued with malafide intention. In support of such stand learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Prasanna Kumar Acharya vs. State of Orissa and Others. This Court in Para-13, 15 to 17 has held as follows:- // 7 // “13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 : 1992 (6) SLR (SC) has observed as under:- “xxxxxx the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the 6 other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of the legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department.” From the above is evident that the executive instructions even if not followed, the Court should not interfere with the order of transfer.
#15. Referring to Shilpi Bose case (supra) and Gujurat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 (2) SLR 684 (SC), it is held that a judicial review of an administrative action is of course permissible, but orders of transfer are interfered when:- a. the transfer is mala fide or arbitrary or perverse; b. when it adversely alters the service conditions in 15 terms of rank, pay and emoluments; c. when guidelines laid down by the department are infringed and lastly; d. when it is frequently done; and e. if there is a statutory infraction. Therefore, whenever a public servant is transferred, he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in the proceeding of transfer, it is open to him to modification or cancellation of the transfer order. the competent authority representation
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.