Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Vivek Agarwal, JJ. contemplated instant intra Court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh High Court Act, 2005. The order passed by the Single Judge was challenged where the petition was dismissed on merits, the petitioner sought relief against his transfer order from one district to another.

D.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the child of the petitioner was in Class 11th and the transfer will affect the studies of the child and in between the mid-session there was very less possibility to getting admission in a new school. Hence the academic of the child was in jeopardy. Hence, the transfer must be stayed.

The Court observed that, transfer on the ground of the son/daughter of transferred employee was in Class-11th and 12th was not a justifiable cause however, it was stated that as our Constitution via Article 38, reflected that ‘State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.’

Hence, the Court decided that “for a public servant to strive towards excellence, it was of utmost importance that fair and equitable opportunities were made available by the State. One of the means to achieve the goal to provide equitable opportunities by the State was to make available healthy and stress-free working environment for a public servant. It further remarked that such stress-free environment was only possible when the employer, made transfers took into account not only the administrative exigencies/public interest but also the genuine personal problems of the public servant liable to be transferred. A balance has to be struck by the employer which was though difficult but not impossible to achieve. Every government in its capacity as an employer owes it to its employees. If this balance between the administrative exigency and personal inconvenience is kept in mind before every event of transfer, the cause of heart-burning amongst public servants under transfer would reduce to the minimum thereby creating a healthy and congenial atmosphere between the employer and employees which in turn contributes greatly to the overall development of the particular institution and as well as the nation.

The Court further observed that the public servants, whose children were pursuing their career in the higher secondary stage of education, were not to be disturbed barring an emergent situation where a transfer cannot be avoided or deferred. It was observed that such observation cannot be turned into a direction because of the inherent limitations of the power of judicial review.

Hence the order of transfer of the petitioner was quashed. Further Additional Advocate General and Chief Secretary of Government of M.P were served a copy of the particular order.[Ripudaman Singh Yadav v. State of M.P, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1658, decided on 16-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. dismissed a petition for it being raised for the first time in an intra-court appeal.

The appellant has filed the said writ petition questioning the “Science & Technology Entrepreneurship Park” (STEP) in terminating their services. The counsel has contended that STEP was initially established and funded by the respondent and consequently “STEP” would fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the respondent pressed upon the fact that STEP is a self-financing body whose funds were initially granted by the Government of India to establish the above plus there was no allocation of funds towards the same for more than 15 years now. Also, STEP was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which further corroborates their submission. The case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 was referred to wherein it was stated that to prove instrumentality it has to be proved that financially, functionally and administratively there existed governmental control but if the control was found to be regulatory then body was not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Now the question that arose before the Court was whether termination of the services of the petitioners under the Indian Contract Act necessitates examination in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here the Court said that the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal was extremely limited so accordingly the question cannot be decided here that too after permitting the parties to amend their respective pleadings.

Hence appeal was disposed of with a liberty to file a fresh appeal. [Hasibur Rahmaan v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 28, Order dated 03-01-2019]