Manipur High Court
Shri Moirangthem Kunjahari Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 16 May, 2023
[1]
SHOUGRAK Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SHOUGRAKPAM
PAM DEVANANDA
DEVANAND SINGH AT IMPHAL
Date: 2023.05.16
A SINGH 13:13:59 +05'30'
W.P. (C) No. 388 of 2021
Shri Moirangthem Kunjahari Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o
M. Apabi Singh of Ngaikhong Khullen Bazar Mayai, P.O. & P.S.
Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795126.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Education/S), Government of Manipur, Imphal - 795001.
2. The Director of Education (School), Government of Manipur,
Imphal-795004.
3. Shri Yanglem Prem Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late
Yanglem Mohendro Singh of Bishnupur Ward No. IV, P.O. & P.S.
Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795126.
... Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 389 of 2021
Shri Moirangthem Kunjahari Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o
M. Apabi Singh of Ngaikhong Khullen Bazar Mayai, P.O. & P.S.
Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur - 795126.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Education/S), Government of Manipur, Imphal - 795001.
2. The Director of Education (School), Government of Manipur,
Imphal-795004.
3. Shri Yanglem Prem Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late
Yanglem Mohendro Singh of Bishnupur Ward No. IV, P.O. &
P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795126.
... Respondents
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. T. Rajendra, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Shakir Khan, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. A. Vashum, GA
Date of Hearing :: 20-04-2023
Date of Judgment :: 16-05-2023
J U D G M E N T
[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Shakir Khan, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.
Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
[2] WP(C) No. 388 of 2021 had been filed challenging the order
dated 13-01-2021 issued by the Director of Education (S), Manipur effecting
transfer and posting of the petitioner from Ngaikhong High School to
Ngaikhong Junior High School. WP(C) No. 389 of 2021 had been filed
challenging the order dated 13-01-2021 issued by the Director of Education
(S), Manipur appointing the respondent No. 3 as Headmaster-in-charge of
Ngaikhong High School as a stopgap arrangement till a regular
Headmaster/ Mistress is posted at the school. As the parties in the two writ
petitions are the same and the issues involved in the two writ petitions are
interrelated, the present two writ petitions are disposed of by this common
order.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as
Assistant Science Graduate Teacher on 02-12-1987 in the Department of
Education (S), Government of Manipur and he was posted at Sumkhohen
Junior High School, Churachandpur District. After serving for about thirteen
years in the said school, the petitioner was transferred to Thinungei
[3]
Phubala High School in Bishnupur District. Thereafter, the petitioner was
again transferred to Ngaikhong High School in Bishnupur District on
28-12-2013. After serving for about seven years in Ngaikhong High School,
the petitioner was again transferred to Ngaikhong Junior High School in
Bishnupur District on 13-01-2021 vide order dated 13-01-2021 issued by
the Director of Education (S), Manipur. On the same day of issuing the last
transfer order of the petitioner, the Director of Education (S), Manipur
issued another order dated 13-01-2021 appointing the respondent No. 3 as
Headmaster-in-charge of Ngaikhong High School at his Grade Pay without
any extra remuneration and as a stopgap arrangement till a regular
Headmaster/ Mistress is posted at the school. Having been aggrieved by
the said two orders, the petitioner assailed the same by filing the present
two writ petitions.
[4] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the previous Headmistress of the Ngaikhong High
School retired from service on 30-12-2020 and on her retirement, the
Ngaikhong High School was without a Headmaster and that in the absence
of a regular Headmaster and if a temporary arrangement is to be made, the
seniority position of the employees who are to be considered is very much
required to be examined. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is
senior to respondent No. 3, however by neglecting the seniority position of
the petitioner, the Director of Education (S) issued the impugned order
dated 13-01-2021 appointing the respondent No. 3 as the Headmaster-in-
charge of the said school. According to the learned senior counsel, the said
appointment is in violation of the State Government's Guidelines contained
in its Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2020 for appointing the senior most
person amongst the cadre/ officials belonging to the feeder post of the said
[4]
particular post. The learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that only
to escape from their arbitrary, malafide act of appointing the respondent
No. 3 instead of the petitioner as the in-charge Headmaster of Ngaikhong
High School, the authorities resorted to the most unfair, unjust and
unexpected action and transferred the petitioner to Ngaikhong Junior High
School. It has also been submitted that the impugned transfer order has not
been issued in public interest but only to appoint the respondent No. 3 as
Headmaster-in-charge of Ngaikhong High School and to prevent and shut
the mouth of the petitioner from raising any claim in such appointment.
According to the learned senior counsel, such action of the authorities is
mala fide, discriminatory and arbitrary and as such, both the impugned
transfer order and impugned in-charge arrangement order are liable to be
quash and set aside.
[5] Mr A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents submitted that before issuance of the impugned transfer order
dated 13-01-2021, the petitioner was posted at Ngaikhong High School by
an order dated 28-12-2013. After serving for about seven years in said
Ngaikhong High School, the petitioner was transferred and posted at
Ngaikhong Junior High School, which is situated near the locality of the
Ngaikhong High School, by the impugned transfer order dated 13-01-2021.
The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the transfer and
posting of the petitioner from Ngaikhong High School to Ngaikhong Junior
High School had been effected as a general transfer and posting of
teachers in the Department of Education (S) and the same had been carried
out in the exigency of service and in public interest without any ulterior
motive or without any malafide intention. The learned Government
Advocate also submitted that the petitioner had failed to point out any
[5]
arbitrariness in the State action or that the impugned transfer order issued
by the competent authority has violated any of his legal rights. It is also
pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that after the petitioner
had been transferred to another school vide impugned transfer order dated
13-01-2021, he is no longer the senior most Graduate Teacher in
Ngaikhong High School and hence, the question of the petitioner being the
senior most Graduate Teacher in Ngaikhong High School does not arise at
all and that there is no ground for interfering with the impugned order
dated 13-01-2021 appointing the respondent No. 3 as Headmaster-in-
charge of Ngaikhong High School as a stopgap arrangement till a regular
Headmaster/Mistress is posted at the said school. The learned Government
Advocate lastly submitted that the present writ petitions had been filed on
the basis of misconceived facts and law and accordingly, the same are
liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
[6] I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties at length and also carefully examined the relevant
materials available on record. The admitted facts in the present cases is
that, before issuance of the impugned orders dated 13-01-2021, the
petitioner was posted at Ngaikhong High School by an order dated
28-12-2013 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of
Manipur. After serving for about seven years in the said Ngaikhong High
School, the Director of Education (S) issued the impugned order dated
13-01-2021 thereby transferring and posting the petitioner to Ngaikhong
Junior High School, which according to the learned Government Advocate
is located in the vicinity of Ngaikhong High School. There is also no dispute
with regard to the fact that the impugned transfer order had been issued by
a competent authority and that the transfer order did not violate any
[6]
statutory rules or executive instructions or orders issued by the
Government.
The petitioner challenge the transfer order dated 13-01-2021 only
on the ground of malafide by contending that he is the senior most Graduate
Teacher in Ngaikhong High School and that he had been transferred out
from Ngaikhong High School in order to appoint the respondent No. 3 as
Headmaster-in-charge of Ngaikhong High School. On the other hand, the
stand taken by the official respondents is that the impugned transfer order
had been issued as a general transfer and posting of teachers serving in
the Department of Education (S) and that the transfer order had been
issued in the exigency of service and for administrative reasons and purely
in public interest. It is also the stand of the respondents that the impugned
transfer order did not violate any mandatory statutory rules or executive
instructions or orders issued by the Government and that the transfer order
did not violate any of the petitioner's legal rights.
[7] In the case of "Rajendra Singh & ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors." reported in (2009)15 SCC 178, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:-
"8. A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at
a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at
one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the
administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer
of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of
appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of
service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary.
No Government can function if the government servant insists
that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position,
he should continue in such place or position as long as he
desires (see State of U.P. V. Gobardhan Lal, SCC p. 406, para
7)."
[7]
"9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of
an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of
some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fide. In Shilpi
Bose v. State of Bihar this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4)
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer
order which is 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 transferrable 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. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day
transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate
authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration
which would not be conducive to public interest. The High
Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the
transfer orders."
"10. In N.K. Singh V. Union of India this Court reiterated that: (SCC p.
103, para 6)
"6. ... the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a
government servant to an equivalent post without any
adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is
very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides
and violation of any specific provision...."
[8] Keeping in view the above well settled principle of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also keeping in view the undisputed facts
and circumstances of the present case, this Court is to examine whether
the petitioner had been able to make out any case for interfering with the
impugned transfer order. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner assailed his
transfer order only on ground of malafide action. It is a well settled principle
of law that the onus of proving malafide action lies to the person who makes
such allegation and that any allegation of malafide action needs to be
[8]
specifically pleaded and proved by placing or producing sufficient credible
and reliable evidence. In the present case except for the bald statement
made by the petitioner that he is the senior most Graduate Teacher in
Ngaikhong High School and that he had been transferred out from the said
school to appoint the respondent No. 3 as Headmaster-in-charge, there is
no other material available on record to substantiate the allegation that the
authorities issued the transfer order with malafide intent. Accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order only on
the basis of the allegation raised by the petitioner that the said transfer order
had been issued by the authorities with malafide intent. Consequently, this
Court is also not inclined to entertain the plea made by the petitioner
that the impugned order dated 13-01-2021, appointing the respondent
No. 3 as Headmaster-in-charge of Ngaikhong High School as a stopgap
arrangement till a regular Headmaster/ Mistress is posted at the school, is
liable to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the petitioner is
deemed to be no longer a teacher serving in Ngaikhong High School after
issuance of the transfer and posting order dated 13-01-2021. In the result,
the writ petitions fails and the same are accordingly dismissed as being
devoid of merit. Earlier interim order stands vacated. In view of the facts
and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
