Transfer cannot be claimed as a right by government employees: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday held that an employee in government service cannot claim transfer as a matter of right [M Kachu Fathima v. Government of Tamil Nadu]..Justice SM Subramaniam emphasised transfer is only incidental to service and that a concession can never be claimed as a right."This Court is of the considered opinion that transfer itself is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. Transfer can never be claimed as a matter of right by the Government employees. Transfers are issued on administrative grounds. It is the prerogative of the public administration to transfer the employee in the public interest and to ensure efficient and effective administration," the order stated.It is the prerogative of the public administration to transfer the employee in the public interest and to ensure efficient and effective administration, the Court added..Pertinently, the Court held that its power of judicial review with respect to policies of general transfer was limited.“When transfer itself is incidental to service, the concession extended the employees to choose the place or post would never provide any cause for moving a writ petition,” the order said..- Petitioner, a government employee, sought inclusion in transfer counselling and for being placed under priority quota;- Plea claimed that she was eligible to participate in counselling and must be allowed to participate;- The High Court refused to interfere reasoning that transfer can never be claimed as a matter of right;- It was held that it was the administration’s prerogative to transfer in public interest;- Further, the Single Judge stipulated that power of judicial review in respect of general transfer counselling policies was limited..The single-Judge was hearing a plea against a Government Order. The petitioner was seeking a direction to the State to allow her to participate in transfer counselling and place her under the priority spouse quota..The Court, however, refused to grant the petitioner’s prayer, observing that the counselling policy introduced by the government is a concession extended to its employees to provide them with an opportunity to choose a place or post, but only subject to availability..Since for the entertainment of a writ petition, a right and infringement of the right must be established, a general transfer counselling would not provide a cause of action. In fact, even if employees are unable to get a particular place or post, then too no such right can be construed, the Court stipulated.“If at all there is any gross violation of the policy decision taken by the Authorities competent, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Authorities concerned for redressal of his/her grievance in the manner known to law,” the Court said..When the counsel for the petitioner stressed that the petitioner was eligible to be included, Justice Subramaniam noted that it was for the authorities to verify her service register, and take a decision in that regard. The plea was, therefore, disposed of..Advocate Pon Ramkumar T appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by Additional Government Pleader GV Vairam Santhosh..[Read Order]