High Court Karnataka High Court

Union Of India vs Shri Mahesh Joshi on 2 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Shri Mahesh Joshi on 2 July, 2008
Author: Cyriac Joseph Hinchigeri
 ~  5-c2{§s£d}.?;"'t!ze same having regard ta the axigsancies
_   €2fvei%k:f;::i£rf§£:"ation, The guidelinas say that as far as
'  pos5iéi§,'Thasband and wife must be posted at the

 A. ,  céizfer upon the Government employee a Iegalfy
=_ _'A"..'anforteabie right;

the Eearned Senier Advacate refied an a 
Hmfbie Supreme Court in the case 
mam mm omens v. S;-Iii;:§3$fi!xS*"r¥é§?\Gtt$§VAV...,§_;'?':'
1993(4) sec 357. jibe  p§r:s¢;-3 "o'Vf*! 1fi'2§V"'~ 

gudgment is extracted here'i'r;L§:é%9w:

"F. W320 should.' :béL'V'€f1a§75fs;?*é:;ff.V§vbere, is a
mattar fogf'E'!2_e a;abfé;;. éj'at eA.,§'£;ti2éri:§j?"' 'to decide,
Unlefi flffize  if_réns_fér..  Vvitiatad by mafia
tides ibr Es > '§35é:de .LA§?fel§3£i@3 of any statutoiy
prc%visf5.n.§,' ii;-gA_cow§' :§;;h9£--.in.£:§rfa:e with it wfziie
c{rde;f£?xgx'T'L'f{3e.V_  r..rfar;sf?e;;___ there is no doubt, Ihe
aiithbgfity £n:us;§'j_Lj!dgrnet1é_ erde:'fV'is:._   L.

former Judge 9:' the High  azgd ts. 'thes_'Aa§gere
ef the germs e,_fi'd g.ifenstréée_%£s:'~--.gf the writ
jeefsdictiom) The Att!z:fn£§t:2fz'§§ze__.?'r£!Je:§a{ is not an
appellate e::t!ror§t}«""$5ttfi;gV "§e.t:-_j;;z{{;m.ef:'t' over the
erders ef'  ;;"2}ae_!3et"':§abetitute its own
judgeiétrtj' " that  .the_ :':;?Lit§:?0¥*ity competent in
t;fa:2sfe;*;.__V"' IE1 ;,;_t£2£e.j'i:eee '' ttzeevvfiibunai has eleatiy
exeee¢fele't'._--vttsV_ §t;ri::=;:Iit:ti_o:=_ in interfering with the
ofdetef trae's:.°f:¢:r{' v«i(§'?e4}:2rder of the Trteenei reads
as it'e§t%wete _s4;rtt_i;2:__:g:_"_.;';°3 eppea! over the order of

; 'fteesfef m'a_de"'ey'V"the Senior Administrative Officer
L '  (eempetent ee'i;'wfity)t

   ebeeivetiens in fact tend :0 negative
"Vt!1e' zzélfeéndeete ceeteetioes instead of supporting
 tfié!'§?;v  The judgment also does not support the

fegeeedents' etzntention that if such an order Se

 I ~._qa:estie1}ecf in: a eourt or the tribunal, the eutherfty
' is obfiged to justify the transfer by adducing the

reasens tizerefer. It dees not afso say that the
watt or the tnrbenei can qeash the order of
transfer, if any of the administrative
iestxuctfons,/guide!iees am not followed, much fees

093 H.

 



: 7--..__'with fu.|iA %and e.'i.a'.v'i~;;p§5:é§fie parzicuiars and £t may be permissible En
'a.pprop£ia1Ee«;_pp'se to draw reasonable inference of malaficies

'  Lfafztswplezaded and established.
V'   The ieamed cmmsel far the respondent No.3 submitted

fl_”‘Ati.’:_’4_a’4jt:”respondent Ne.3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party

for the adjudication of issues involved in th§s petititm. Ha further

1:?

“3. In our view, transfer pf efficers is required ‘.55-.-‘jjf:
effected an the basis pf set of norms or guffiéifnéfi;

The power of transferrfng an ;of?i¢er«_ pangzéf’
wieided arbitrarily, male fide or aka e7§§feitis:?3~.af§af1>:§¢.:””p:..,,, p–A
efficient and independent 0fl’5Ce!f_ pr pa}:-vtfée ;’nsfz;é r1;;’e..vpf
politicians whose work is np’f’p»._c;:icne b:?~.t}4§’&=–V-Zoffigser
csncemed. For bette-:3 adn2pin’isZ?af5¢rz._ the-A “c:ff§’cfé:’s
cancerned must have “”fréedpgfii.fréh’éfj_fpar_Vof being
harassed by repeated trafésferp: Acér tfansféré srdered

at the instance s:::r§2’ec;=;s*:e.§~’ wm}f% !ias._.p.b£hipg ta dc:

with the bagsirééggsil’pf”_.a&!:%2§niEs£”ra*%ic%§. ‘

7. Ne:{i:¥y”‘$;£:”:v:’ép;§§Viée A’ré¥_’iVeti”V£on a judgment pf the
Horfble S’L:.pr:a’m’e the case pf M.

saAxKARAvApAaA¥ANAp§,’*ins v. smrrs or KARNATAKA
A;§%’E4,_pGTviE§:ER;$:V:r’apcftA逧’vv§–:”:~–«i1993)1 sec 54 wherein it is heid

thVa:’t«V.iL_i: pAn’af’aEwé:y*s. be possibie ts: dempnstrate malice in fact

HEM.

against the first respendent on the basis of the cemp§ei_rgt’,’__e””.349:

Mukesh Sharma whe mule mat take charge et_..3:é?’§:ge::e:§e’4_hes’:

been posted etsewheret en the strength

Tribune! first respeneent has beenV.tt.gntEnu–§eeV«et §e’ri–gts§ef’e

Much water has flawed under the brtitvdgiieig tn si;et1″”‘c§-tcutitetences,
the best emerge in this case 5}Vt’eg¢i:vvt’:t§}ei_t§entra’!Vvéetternmeet
to have e fresh $430!; at the fresh decisien
regarding the ceeti:;~Vu’a’:t§;e oftfiret Sengaiere.

19., ttfewazlew this petiticarz by
fili35¥15fi§ February, 2007′ passed
by the centrata’ .Admm:es£r%ét;~t:et«§§;+;<;.§:,;::at in cm. r~4e,3e3 cf 2905,
Hewevergte tArft1e'E't<7'e..:Vi§"ciheaftttett the queehing of the impugned
jiztefiee ttitetteutemetic revévei ef the impugned

tranefiet-.e-_ faatea 2" Nevember, 2065 and its

VV;._lift':p!eme2'r.tatie'nt.vtA5¥"i'ie matter caiis fer a fresh censideratien ef the

fotr trvefiefetrieg the first reseendent, Same Senior

ef Deerdershen Kendra may have retired and some

'?r§e;i…heve been promoted and same new Beeirdarshen Kendree

have been set up. Taking eii the subeetztzent deveioztrmeflts

H. .H.

23

and exgganciea ef aciministratien inta Qragmatig..«:,§f§5§fié§§*at§§z*s;7

the petiticners are dérecteé is take;

acccsrdance with Saw and pass apps’a4pria£%&._®’-der. _.’–F’.i§l.’ 1:i*ien”}the =

first resgandent can gantinue in the §’ra:$en_t pcfisst,

…. A. Judge