Mohammad Iqbal Bhat vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral

01/ Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought the following reliefs :

02/ What emerges from the pleadings in this petition is that the petitioner is aggrieved of an order No. GDC/Estt/File-196/e file-16 (2022- 02) 6798-6805 dated 31-08-2026 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby he has been transferred, in the interest of administration and smooth functioning of the college/hospital work, to the office of Medical Superintendent, (Registration Section). The said order is

challenged on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A.

03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the impugned order of transfer completely ignores the settled cadre structure and established seniority of the petitioner. It is stated that as per the final seniority list of hostel/house keeping, notified by the respondents in terms of Circular No. Est/Seniority List/NG file-43 file021/20212 3850-78 dated 28-05-2026, it is established the petitioner holding the post of house keeper, regularized on 08-06-2020 at S.No.5. They submit that the arbitrary displacement of the petitioner, directly infringes upon his cadre rights guaranteed under law. It is stated further that the order impugned is as a result of bias only to victimize the petitioner by a colorable exercise of administrative power, as, despite availability of MTS and general clerical staff, the petitioner has been singled out and made to function out side his cadre.

04/ There is no doubt that an employer can place an employee under transfer in the best public and administrative interest and an employee has no right to be posted at a place of his/her choice and once he/she has accepted the conditions of service, he cannot be allowed to deviate. Intervention of the courts in the matter of transfer is very limited^. Courts can only intervene in case the authority has acted in a mala fide manner or the order is passed in violation of the Statute or same has not been passed for the professed purpose. To this effect, I am fortified by a catenae of judgements delivered by the apex court, e.g. Shilpi Bose & others versus State of Bihar and others, 1991 (2) SCC 659, Union of India and others versus S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 &

Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592. However, there is no challenge thrown on the order of transfer on the above grounds.

05/ Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that by issuance of impugned order, it has not been spelt out as to what functions the petitioner has to perform in the Medical Superintendent’s office other than keeping him posted in Registration section. Learned counsel submit that such a utilization of the petitioner will be a useless exercise and it will not serve any administrative or public purpose as the petitioner is a house keeper and he is meant to perform a particular professional function. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner have relied upon the judgement of the apex court delivered in case titled as P.K.Chinaswamy versus Government of Tamil Nadu, reported as 1988 AIR SC 78, wherein Their Lordships have held that in a democratic polity, as ours, the bureaucracy works as a pivot running the administration. Fact remains that every public officer is a trustee in respect of office he holds and the salary and other benefits, which he draws, and he is obliged, as such, to render proper service to the state. The scheme of posting/transfer should be so created, which can commensurate to the status/service of an employee. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not spelt out in the order impugned as to what function the petitioner has to perform, as such, order impugned suffers from non application of mind.

06/ Reliance is further laid on the judgement titled as Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University versus Dayanad Jha, reported as 1988 SC I, 200 as also on the judgement titled as

Prasar Bharti versus Amarjit Singh and others.

07/ After arguing for a considerable time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved a detailed representation before the competent authority and the same has not been disposed of in accordance with merits, causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.

08/ Learned counsel for the respondents, while rebutting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as a receptionist in terms of order dated 07-01-2013 and, in all fairness, he submitted that due care will be taken to maintain his status in tune with his designation as house keeper.

09/ Be that as it may, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this matter is taken up for final disposal and it is provided that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law cited above and by maintaining the cadre integrity of the petitioner, in case, by issuance of the impugned order, same has been disturbed. Needful to be done within a period of two weeks and for two weeks, the present position of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. However, it is further provided that the respondents shall pass the speaking order in the matter within the aforesaid period positively.

10/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this O.A 978/2026 is disposed of along with connected M.As, if any.