In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has reiterated that employees do not possess a vested right to select their place of posting or designation. The court emphasized that such decisions fall exclusively within the employer's discretion, guided by considerations of public interest and administrative exigency. This judgment underscores the principle that postings are an inherent aspect of service, and it is the employer's prerogative to determine them.
Case Background
The petitioner commenced his service as an Offset Machine Assistant at the Postal Printing Press (PPP) in Bhubaneswar on August 1, 2000. On May 9, 2018, the government decided to close the PPP and reassign its employees to other departments within the Postal Department. Employees were instructed to submit their preferred postings, and the petitioner indicated the Circle Office in Bhubaneswar as his choice. However, his preference was not accommodated. Instead, eight other employees were selected for training and subsequently absorbed into various establishments within the Postal Department. Additionally, seven employees were retained at the PPP in Bhubaneswar as Office Assistants until its complete closure. The petitioner was reassigned as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) member in the RMS 'N' Division. Feeling aggrieved, he submitted a representation highlighting that individuals with equal or lesser qualifications had been granted postings aligned with their preferences. The authorities rejected his representation, citing his lack of administrative experience as a barrier to a posting in the Circle Office as a Postal Assistant. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Cuttack, which upheld the authorities' decision. Consequently, he filed a writ petition challenging the tribunal's verdict.
Court's Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho, examined the petitioner's claims and the tribunal's decision. The court observed that the petitioner had been reassigned as an MTS in the RMS 'N' Division following the closure of the PPP. It was noted that the petitioner had not undergone the requisite training for the Postal Assistant position, and his qualifications did not align with the demands of that role. The court emphasized that the petitioner lacked a vested right to demand a specific posting or designation. Citing established legal principles, the court stated that employee postings are a service incidence, and it is the employer's responsibility to determine placements based on public interest and administrative needs. The court further highlighted that an employee cannot claim entitlement to a particular posting location or role for a specific duration. The bench concluded that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction, and the tribunal had rightly dismissed the petitioner's application. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Legal Precedents and Comparative Judgments
The court's decision aligns with established legal precedents concerning employee postings and transfers. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons should not be interfered with unless they violate mandatory statutory rules or are issued with malafide intent. Similarly, in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), the Supreme Court reiterated that an employee does not have a vested right to remain in a particular post and that transfer is an incidence of service. These judgments underscore the principle that transfer and posting decisions fall within the employer's discretion, guided by administrative requirements and public interest.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for both employers and employees in the public sector:
Employer's Discretion: The judgment reinforces the authority of employers to make posting and transfer decisions based on organizational needs, public interest, and administrative exigencies.
Employee Expectations: Employees are reminded that they cannot claim a vested right to a specific posting or designation. Acceptance of transfers and postings as service incidences is essential.
Judicial Intervention: The judgment delineates the limited scope of judicial intervention in administrative decisions related to postings and transfers, emphasizing non-interference unless decisions are arbitrary, malafide, or in violation of statutory provisions.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court's decision underscores the principle that postings and transfers are integral aspects of public service, falling within the employer's exclusive domain. Employees are expected to comply with such administrative decisions, recognizing that they are made in the organization's best interest and public service. This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of established legal principles governing service jurisprudence, emphasizing the balance between administrative discretion and employee rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.