Supreme Court Upholds Maharashtra High Court's Decision in Inter-District Transfer Dispute

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Vijay S/o Wamanrao Kamble v. Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Mali & Ors., addressing the legality of an inter-district transfer in the Revenue Service of Maharashtra. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s ruling that such a transfer affected the promotional opportunities of existing employees in the transferee district.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the transfer of the appellant, Vijay Wamanrao Kamble, from Hingoli to Latur district in Maharashtra. The transfer was carried out under Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Transfer Act”).

The transfer order was challenged by the respondents on the grounds that it affected the promotional chances of employees who were already working in the Latur district. The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, ruled in favor of the respondents, setting aside the transfer. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the inter-district transfer of the appellant was legally valid under Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act.
Whether the transfer affected the promotion chances of other employees in the Latur district.
Whether the High Court’s intervention in the transfer order was justified.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant argued that:

His transfer was legally made under Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act, which allows for special case transfers with approval from a higher authority.
Since he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, his transfer did not violate any reservation norms.
There was no real impact on existing employees’ promotions as he was transferred against an existing vacancy.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, who were employees in the Latur district, contended that:

The transfer of the appellant directly impacted the promotional opportunities of clerks awaiting promotion to the position of Senior Clerk.
Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act only permits transfers within a district or before the completion of tenure, not inter-district transfers that disrupt the employment structure.
The District Collector had clearly stated that there were no available vacancies in Latur that could accommodate the appellant without affecting existing employees.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act, which states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 or this Section, the competent authority may, in special cases, after recording reasons in writing and with the prior approval of the immediately superior transferring authority mentioned in the table of Section 6, transfer a Government servant before completion of his tenure of post.”

The Court held that:

Section 4(5) does not authorize inter-district transfers that affect promotion chances of employees already working in the transferee district.
The appellant’s transfer was not a “special case” within the meaning of the Act, as it did not justify disrupting the established seniority and promotional prospects of other employees.
The transfer was made without properly considering the impact on Latur district employees, making it legally unsustainable.

The Court observed:

“The provision does not enable the Government or the competent authority to make an inter-district transfer affecting the chance of others. Sub-section 5 of Section 4, as extracted above, pertains only to transfer before completion of tenure, which we find from Section 3 as three years.”

The Supreme Court further noted:

“By transferring the appellant to Latur district, the clerks who have been waiting for promotion are certainly affected.”

The Court also referred to the detailed affidavit filed by the District Collector, which confirmed that there was no vacancy available in Latur to accommodate the appellant without affecting existing employees.

Final Judgment

Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court:

Dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside the transfer.
Held that inter-district transfers cannot be allowed if they negatively impact employees awaiting promotion in the transferee district.
Clarified that Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act is not an enabling provision for inter-district transfers.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for government employees and administrative authorities:

It reinforces the principle that transfer policies must not negatively impact employees’ career progression.
It clarifies that special case transfers under Section 4(5) must be justified with valid reasons and cannot be used arbitrarily.
It prevents government authorities from misusing discretionary transfer powers to disrupt seniority and promotion structures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay S/o Wamanrao Kamble v. Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Mali ensures that inter-district transfers in government service are made in compliance with statutory provisions. By upholding the High Court’s ruling, the Court has reinforced that transfer policies should be implemented fairly, without undermining the promotion prospects of existing employees. This judgment sets a strong precedent for future cases involving transfer disputes in public sector employment.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vijay So Wamanrao K vs Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Transfers Cases
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category