Transfers should norms not patronage : Himachal HC raps state for arbitrary use of power

Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a transfer order of the state horticulture department, calling it arbitrary and unconstitutional. A single judge bench maintained that transfer should be an established service norm rather than an instrument of patronage to adjust the preferred officer.

Single-judge bench of the High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goyal, on Thursday set aside the government’s decision to transfer a state employee from his posting at Nankhari in the Rampur subdivision to Dodra Kwar.

Advertisement

The petitioner who was Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) in Horticulture at Nankhari, had challenged the order stating that it was passed without administrative necessity and driven by the desire to accommodate other officers preferred by the government.
In a firm ruling, reinforcing constitutional principles of equality and fairness in public service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a government transfer order, holding that the arbitrary use of administrative power to favour certain officers violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The HC observed that the petitioner had been posted in Nankhari for only seven months. Prior to this, he had completed a full three-year tenure in Rohru, a posting that aligns with recognised administrative norms for rotational transfers.
The State government defended the transfer, asserting it was in the “public interest”, but the court found no material on record to justify this claim. The official file lacked any reference to administrative exigency, departmental requirement or bona-fide reason for the order.
“The mere assertion of public interest does not suffice where the file discloses no objective reason, and administrative action appears to be coloured by extraneous considerations,” the court said, invoking settled constitutional tenets that arbitrariness and equality are incompatible.

The bench emphasised that State action must be founded on fair and lawful principles, and that unfettered discretion cannot substitute for reasoned administrative judgment.
In its reasoning, the court noted that the private respondents — those officers being transferred to Nankhari — were moved without entitlement to Transfer Travel Allowance (TTA), indicating that their transfer requests were self-initiated rather than emanating from departmental necessity. This, the court said, underscored that the reshuffle was designed to accommodate personal preferences rather than to meet organisational needs.
Citing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment, the bench held that administrative power must not be exercised in a manner that privileges some while prejudicing others without rational justification.

Acknowledging that Class I officers do not have a statutorily fixed tenure at any given station, the court said that a seven-month posting, with no supporting administrative rationale, could not be justified on any known principle of service law.

In its final direction, the High Court ordered the State government to allow the petitioner to continue his service at Nankhari for a “reasonable period”, underscoring that transfers should follow established service norms and not be used as instruments of patronage.
The bench also rejected the State’s contention that the petitioner’s transfer was in public interest, finding the record devoid of any “material or rationale to support the claim.” The court’s order stressed that valid administrative action must demonstrate transparent reasoning rooted in public necessity or organisational requirement, not the accommodation of preferred individuals.