Orissa High Court
Kishore Biswal vs Union Of India And Others ......... Opp. ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
A.F.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30756 of 2024
An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
-----------------------------
Kishore Biswal ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner - Mr. Sashi Bhusan Jena
Advocate
For Opp. Parties - Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Millan Kumar
Sulochana Patra,
Central Govt. Counsel
Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap,
Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of
India
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 21.01.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. Millan
Kumar and Sulochana Patra, learned Central Govt. Counsel has
Page 1 of 7
filed power on behalf of the opp. parties Union of India, which is
taken on record.
Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Sr. Panel Counsel,
Govt. of India has filed memo of appearance on behalf opposite
party no.2, which is also taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
Kishore Biswal challenging the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00083 of 2020 in dismissing the Original
Application filed by the petitioner in which prayer was made to
quash the orders of absorption of the petitioner in RMS „N‟
Division and for a direction to the opposite parties to absorb him
in the post of Postal Assistant in Circle Office i.e. in the office of
the Chief Post Master General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (opposite
party no.3) with all consequential benefits taking into account
the option of the petitioner dated 07.01.2019.
The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was
appointed as Off-set Machine Assistant in Postal Printing Press,
Bhubaneswar (in short, „PPP‟) on 01.08.2000. The Govt. of India
took a decision to close the PPP, Bhubaneswar on 09.05.2018,
however to absorb its employees in other establishment of
Page 2 of 7
Department of Posts, a list of employees was prepared vide
letter dated 29.08.2018. The employees of „PPP‟ were asked to
submit their option in the prescribed proforma and the petitioner
also submitted his option with preferred place of posting at Circle
Office, Bhubaneswar. The option of the petitioner was not
considered, however, vide letter dated 07.01.2019, eight
employees were sent for training and absorbed in different
establishments of the Postal Department vide order dated
24.01.2019. Again vide order dated 15.05.2019, seven
employees were allowed to be retained in the PPP, Bhubaneswar
against the post of Office Assistant till its complete closure and
the petitioner was absorbed as MTS in RMS „N‟ Division. The
case of the petitioner is that persons who were retained in PPP,
Bhubaneswar as well as the employees absorbed in Postal
Department were having either equal or lesser qualification than
him. The petitioner submitted his representation and the
opposite parties vide order dated 19.05.2019, only changed his
post from MTS to Sorting Assistant in RMS 'N' Division instead of
posting him in his opted place i.e., in Circle Office as Postal
Assistant. The case of the opposite parties is that due to lack of
administrative knowledge, the petitioner was not posted in the
Circle Office as Postal Assistant. The grievance of the petitioner
Page 3 of 7
for posting him as Postal Assistant in the Circle Office was
rejected, which was challenged before the Central Administrative
Tribunal.
The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit
wherein it is stated that since the petitioner did not have
knowledge in administrative work, he was not absorbed in the PA
cadre in Circle Office and there was no discrimination to the
petitioner and no favour was shown to others. It is further stated
that since in compliance of the interim order dated 20.03.2020,
the petitioner has been posted as Postal Assistant in
Bhubaneswar Division, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
in the O.A.
After going through the pleadings and hearing the
learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Tribunal has
been pleased to hold as follows:-
"4. The case of the applicant is that he had
specific qualification to be posted in PA Cadre at
Circle Office, Bhubaneswar whereas the
respondents‟ contention is that since the applicant
had lack of administrative knowledge, he was not
posted at Circle Office, Bhubaneswar. Nowhere
the applicant has produced any documentary
evidence to show that he had more administrative
Page 4 of 7
knowledge than the others, who were absorbed in
Circle Office, Bhubaneswar. Secondly, the 'case of
the applicant is that his non-posting is due to the
three allegations/reports as reveals from the RTl
information dated 04.11.2022. However, the
applicant has also failed to substantiate that only
due to such allegations and, not because of lack of
administrative knowledge, he was not posted at
Circle Office, Bhubaneswar. Further, we are also
in agreement with the averment of the
respondents that, once the applicant has been
allotted in Bhubaneswar Division as Postal
Assistant, that too in the same scale of pay of
Offset Machine Assistant, i.e. PB Rs. 5200-
20,200/- and Gp 2400/-, the grievance of the
applicant with regard to his posting as PA
subsides. With regard to the claim of the applicant
that he must have been posted to Circle Office,
Bhubaneswar, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that posting of an employee is within the
specific domain of the authorities concerned
looking to the best utilization of the concerned
employee vis a vis his proficiency and
administrative exigencies and the same is no
more res integra"
In the case of Shilpi Bose -Vrs.- State of Bihar
reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 532, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
has held that the order of posting issued by the competent
Page 5 of 7
authority did not violate any legal right. The employee holding a
transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his/her
posting at a particular place.
In the case of State of U.P. -Vrs.- Gobardhan Lal
reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2165, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has held that transfer and posting of an employee at any
particular place or position 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 contra,
in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the transfer
order and posting is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide
exercise of power or violative of statutory provision (an Act or
Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, the
same cannot be lightly interfered with as a matter of course or
routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made.
Thus, in view of the settled principle of law that
posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the
employer to decide as to where a particular employee is to be
posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative
exigency and the employee has no vested right to get a posting
at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a
particular time and it is within the exclusive domain of the
Page 6 of 7
employer to determine as to what place and for how long the
services of a particular employee are required and since this
Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the same unless it
is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be
in violation of statutory provision, after hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner so also the learned counsel for the
opposite parties, we find that the reasons assigned by the
learned Tribunal in not accepting the prayer of the petitioner, is
quite justified.
Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of
merits, stands dismissed.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
................................
S. Ratho, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 21th January, 2025/Pravakar
