NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said if a government employee is transferred not in public interest but on his request, he is generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra pointed out the rationale in assignment of such seniority is to avoid heartburn of existing employees in the transferred cadre.
The court said if a government employee holding a particular post is transferred on public interest, he carries with him his existing status including seniority to the transferred post.
"However, if an officer is transferred at his own request, such a transferred employee will have to be accommodated in the transferred post, subject to the claims and status of the other employees at the transferred place, as their interests cannot be varied without there being any public interest in the transfer," the court said.
The bench allowed an appeal filed by the the Secretary to the Government Department of Health and Family Welfare and another against the Karnataka High Court's order of October 25, 2021.
The court found the High Court blurred the distinction between transfer in public interest and employee's request.
"We are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in directing the appellant to grant seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division Assistant with effect from the date in which the said respondent has entered service in the cadre of Staff Nurse from 05.01.1979, instead of 19.04.1989, when she was appointed in the new cadre of First Division Assistant," the bench said.
The High Court dismissed State's writ petition against a decision by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which directed for considering seniority of an employee, K C Devaki from the date of her initial appointment as staff nurse in 1979 and not from the date of her transfer in 1989 to the post of First Division Assistant made upon her request due to her medical conditions.
"We are of the opinion that seniority has to be with effect from 1989 only," the bench said.
The state was represented by V N Raghupathy and the respondent by advocate Siddharth Garg.
The court examined the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
It found the decision of the government in issuance of final seniority list of October 01, 2007 granting seniority w.e.f. April 19, 1989 is in consonance with Rule 16 of 1977 Recruitment Rules.
This decision is also in consonance with Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules which specifically provide that where transfers are made at the request of the officer, the employee would be placed below all the officers borne in that class in the transferred post, it said.
In its decision, the court emphasised, such transferees are generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department, subject to specific provision of the rules governing the services.
"Transfers characterised as in public interest are founded, sourced, and rooted in administrative exigencies and nothing else. Effecting or transferring employees at their behest is equally important but exercise of that power and discretion is to subserve a different cause or a value, which is distinct from transfer in public interest," the bench said.
The court highlighted it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between these two, as their purpose, procedure, and consequence are distinct. This distinction is in fact recognised and incorporated in the rules, the bench said.
The court said the purpose and object of transfer in public interest is singular and straightforward, i.e., to ensure effective and efficient administration.
On the other hand, where a transfer is sought at the request of the officer and if the government is satisfied with the genuineness of the request, it may accept the request and direct transfer. This is fairness in action as governmental power accommodates, as it must, human needs and vulnerabilities. However, this kind of transfer, effected at the request of the officer, does not partake the character of a transfer made in the public interest, the bench said.
