A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case centers on whether the Gauhati High Court Division Bench’s interference with a transfer order was justified, considering the absence of allegations of malafide intent or statutory violations. The Supreme Court reaffirmed established principles of judicial review regarding transfer orders, emphasizing that such orders cannot be invalidated solely based on recommendations by political representatives unless malafide intent or statutory infraction is evident. The Court restored the Single Judge’s decision, which upheld the transfer order as legally valid and non-detrimental to public interest.

Keywords: Service Law, Modified Transfer Order, Judicial Review, Malafide Exercise, Public Interest.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
March 13, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol

vi) Author:
Justice J.K. Maheshwari

vii) Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 407

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Administrative law principles governing transfers

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
Division Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in WA No. 266 of 2023

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Service Law, Administrative Law, Judicial Review

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from conflicting decisions by the Gauhati High Court’s Single Judge and Division Bench regarding the validity of a transfer order. A UO note from a local MLA prompted the transfer, which was challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness. The Single Judge upheld the order, stating that no malafide intent or statutory violations were alleged. However, the Division Bench invalidated the transfer, deeming it arbitrary and lacking administrative justification. The Supreme Court was approached to determine whether the Division Bench’s interference was legally warranted.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Transfer Details:
   The appellant, Sri Pubi Lombi, was transferred as Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE) to Leparada district via an order dated November 15, 2022. The transfer was later modified on April 20, 2023, based on a UO note by an MLA.

2. Procedural History:

• Respondent No. 5 challenged the modification before the Gauhati High Court’s Single Judge, who upheld the transfer.
• Dissatisfied, Respondent No. 5 filed a writ appeal, leading to the Division Bench reversing the Single Judge’s order.

3. Division Bench’s Stance:
   The Bench held that the transfer lacked justification in public interest or service exigencies, terming it arbitrary.

4. Supreme Court Appeal:
   The appellant argued that the Division Bench erred in overruling the Single Judge without evidence of malafide intent or statutory violations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with the Single Judge’s decision without proof of malafide intent or statutory violations.
2. Whether the transfer, influenced by an MLA’s recommendation, was legally sustainable under administrative law principles.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Limited Scope of Judicial Review:
   The counsel argued that courts should not interfere in transfer matters unless clear malafide intent or statutory violations are established, citing Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357].

2. Political Recommendations Alone Do Not Vitiate Transfers:
   It was contended that MLA recommendations do not inherently render transfer orders invalid (Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 150).

3. Public Interest Justification:
   The transfer modification was defended as being in public interest, with no evidence of arbitrariness or detriment to the affected employee.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Arbitrariness of the Transfer:
   The respondent claimed the transfer was arbitrary, as it was not based on administrative exigencies but rather on an MLA’s UO note.

2. Violation of Legitimate Expectation:
   It was argued that the abrupt modification violated the appellant’s legitimate expectation of stable employment conditions.

3. Improper Procedure:
   The Division Bench emphasized the lack of a departmental proposal supporting the transfer.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226 of the Constitution:
   Provides courts with powers to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or other legal rights.

2. Principles of Administrative Law:
   Focus on ensuring that administrative actions adhere to statutory provisions and are free from arbitrariness or malafide intent.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial interference in transfer orders is limited to cases involving malafide intent or statutory violations. Transfers on political recommendations are not per se invalid unless they contravene legal norms.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court highlighted that state actions must be backed by reason and adhere to administrative protocols.

c. Guidelines:
The following principles were reiterated:

• Transfers should prioritize public interest and service exigencies.
• Malafide allegations require the impleading of the concerned official.
• Judicial review is inappropriate unless clear evidence of illegality exists.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357]
2. Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. [(2007) 8 SCC 150]
3. State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt [AIR 1993 SC 2486]
4. N.K. Singh v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 98]

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India
2. Administrative law principles governing transfers