SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Other vs Mst. NASIM
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Education Department against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer of the respondent from the post of District Education Officer. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with the transfer and posting order of a civil servant passed by the Competent Authority. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant has no vested right to claim a particular post, the unreasoned uprooting of the respondent from her post prematurely, without assigning any reasons, smacked of arbitrariness. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The key principle laid down is that although transfer and posting are prerogative of the administration in the public interest, an arbitrary transfer order lacking reasons and disrupting normal tenure is susceptible to judicial scrutiny and interference by the service tribunal.
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting to a particular post?
- Can an unreasoned transfer order of a civil servant be interfered with by a Service Tribunal?
- Whether the Service Tribunal's interference in the transfer of a civil servant amounts to unwarranted interference in departmental management?
MAMOON KAZI, J.---The respondent was appointed Senior English Teacher in Education Department on 29-9-1962 and was subsequently promoted as a Headmistress and a Senior Headmistress. On 16-8-1993, the respondent was appointed as District Education Officer and posted at Sargodha which was her home town. However, subsequently, on 10-8-1994, the respondent's services were placed by Competent Authority at the disposal of Director, Education (SE), Sargodha, petitioner No. 4 in this petition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10049/1994 before the Lahore High Court, at Lahore and the petition was disposed of with remarks that the respondent would make a representation before petitioner No. 1.
Thereafter, the respondent's services remained at the disposal of petitioner No. 4 from 16-8-1994 to 30-11-1994, but subsequently the respondent was posted as Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Chak No. 107/NB, vide order dated 1-12-1994, which was pursuant to order passed by petitioner No. 1 dated 8-12-1994. The representation made by the respondent to the said petitioner was also rejected by him vide order dated 6-12-1994.
2. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was allowed and the respondent was ordered to be reposted as District Education Officer (WEE) at Sargodha, with immediate effect.
3. The Tribunal after examination of a number of cases came to a conclusion that ladies holding administrative posts had generally been posted in the Districts of their domicile. It, therefore, found that the respondent who was at the fag-end of her career should have been posted according to her convenience, which would have been more in consonance with the Government policy governing female employees.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us has been that no civil servant can claim a vested right in a particular post and since the respondent was transferred to a place nearest to her residence and the said transfer was ordered by the Competent Authority in public interest and no mala fide were involved, the Service Tribunal was not justified in upturning the order dated 10-8-1994. The petition was resisted by the respondent who argued her own case before us.
5. A perusal of the order dated 10-8-1994, which had been impugned before the Service Tribunal, indicates that no reasons for placing the respondent's services at the disposal of Director of Education (SE), Sargodha for further posting had been assigned. There is no controversy in regard to the fact that a civil servant is generally permitted to complete his normal tenure in case of transfer from one place to another. The respondent had earlier been posted as District Education Officer vide order dated 29-7-1993, therefore, the uprooting of the respondent from such post vide order dated 10-8-1994, was a deviation from such normal procedure for which even reasons were not assigned. The order dated 10-8-1994, therefore, smacks of arbitrariness. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has also assailed the Tribunal's order as amounting to interference in the internal management of the Education Department and hindrance in its work, but we are of the view that the Tribunal has acted justly and properly under the circumstances of the case and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.