Gujarat High Court
Gohil Girirajsinh Tirthubha vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023
Bench: J. C. Doshi
C/LPA/713/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 713 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7089 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 713 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GOHIL GIRIRAJSINH TIRTHUBHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
C/LPA/713/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
Heard learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the appellant.
2. The appellant- original petitioner has preferred this Letters
Patent Appeal seeking to call in question judgment and order
dated 29.4.2023 passed by learned single Judge, whereby, the
Special Civil Application of the appellant was not entertained
and came to be dismissed.
2.1 The order which was brought under challenge in the writ
petition was dated 5.4.2023 passed by respondent No.4- the
Executive Engineer, Bhavnagar Irrigation Division, Panwadi,
Bhavnagar, transferring the services of the petitioner from
Shetruji Left Bank Main Canal, Talaja, Sathara Section to
Shetruji Right Bank Main Canal, Talaja, Fulsar Section. The
petitioner wanted the court to hold that the said order was
passed with prejudice and was not in public interest.
3. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the year
1980 in the Irrigation Department. It was stated that the
petitioner's service were terminated in the year 2003,
whereafter the proceedings before the labour court, this court
and thereafter before the Supreme Court were taken out. The
petitioner finally succeeded up with dismissal of the Special
Leave Petition. Since then the petitioner had been serving at the
said place.
3.1 It was the case of the petitioner that on 7.3.2023, First
Information Report came to be filed against total five accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 430, 114, 379, 427 of the
Indian Penal Code read with provisions of the Prevention of
C/LPA/713/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
Damage to Public Properties Act. The complainant of the said
First Information Report was Section Officer of the respondent
department and in the said First Information Report he stated
that the information which was mentioned in the First
Information Report was supplied by the petitioner herein. The
information was that at particular place a boundary wall was
destroyed and damage was caused to the property of the
department.
3.2 The case sought to be made out and pleaded in the petition
by the petitioner was that the transfer order against him was
actuated by the said fact that FIR was based on allegedly
petitioner's information. It was therefore contended that the
transfer order was malafide and punitive.
4. Learned single Judge examined the contents of the
petition. She considered in detail the principles on the basis of
which, the transfers of which otherwise, when administrative,
could not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction. The law is
trite that scope of judicial review against the transfer order is
extremely limited. Unless there are established malafides or
evident statutory infractions, the courts would not interfere. The
High Court would be loath to exercise the writ jurisdiction in the
administrative transfers effected in public interest by employers.
4.1 Learned single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Union of India Vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit,
[(2020) 3 SCC 404], where the Supreme Court expressed
strong dissaproval in the approach of the court to be interfered
with the order of transfers.
C/LPA/713/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
4.2 In Major General J. K. Bansal V/s Union of India
and Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 227], the Supreme Court held thus,
"In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of
Bihar and others AIR 1991 SC 532, the
appellants, who were lady teachers in primary
schools, were transferred on their requests to
places where their husbands were posted. The
contesting respondents, who were displaced
by the appellants, challenged the validity of
the transfer orders before the High Court by
filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, which was allowed and the
transfer orders were quashed. This Court
allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment
of the High Court by observing as under,
"In our opinion, the courts should not
interfere with a transfer order which
are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the
transfer orders are made in violation
of any mandatory statutory rule or on
the ground of mala fide. A
Government servant holding a
transferable post has no vested right
to remain posted at one place or the
other, he is liable to be transferred
from one place to the other. Transfer
orders issued by the competent
authority do not violate any of his
legal rights. Even if a transfer order
is passed in violation of executive
instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with
the order instead affected party
should approach the higher
authorities in the Department"."
(para 9)
C/LPA/713/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
5. In light of the principles above, adverting to the facts of
the present case, the order dated 5.4.2023, whereby the
petitioner was transferred suggests that the transfer is in public
interest. From the facts and circumstantial aspects also it could
be deduced that the transfer is effected for administrative
reasons. The transfer of an employee is the prerogatory of an
employer. No nexus could be established between the First
Information Report in question and transfer order of the
petitioner.
5.1 The order of transfer of the petitioner dated 5.4.2023,
which figures on record, manifests that the transfer of the
petitioner was in public interest. The transfer was effected from
one Office / Section namely Sathara Section to another Section
namely Fulsar Section.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned single Judge was
entirely justified in not entertaining the petition and the prayer.
The challenge to the judgment and order of learned single Judge
in this Letters Patent Appeal is meritless.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application will
not survive. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
Manshi
