Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Transfer Order Made by Vice-Chancellor, Reiterates Law on Malafide Intent

Must Read

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Follow us

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenged his transfer order from one campus of the University to another. The Petitioner claimed that it has been issued with malafide intent. The Court rejected his appeal, deeming it to be self-formulated. 

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner stated that after he got promoted to the post of Superintendent, he was transferred due to the following reason; First, the Petitioner held the Vice-Chancellor (Respondent No.2) responsible for a shortcoming of some amount of money which he owed. Due to this, the Respondents to take revenge on the Petitioner removed the latter from the Physical Verification Committee. The Petitioner was the Chairman of the Committee, seeking to hold the Vice-Chancellor accountable for the shortage of money. 

Second, the Vice-Chancellor transferred the Petitioner from one department to another and also did not approve allotment of accommodation, they were seen as eligible for. 

Lastly, eight people were promoted by the Respondent University (Respondent No.1) and they remained in the university. Four of the incumbents, including the Petitioner, were promoted as Superintendents and were posted outside the University. The Petitioner claimed that his juniors were kept in the university but he was transferred. 

Contrary to this, the Respondent University and the Vice-Chancellor argued that the Petitioner was removed from the Committee by all the members. Thus, the decision was taken by the committee together. Further, when the Petitioner was promoted, his new position was not available at the campus he was working in. Thus, he was transferred to another campus where the post was available. 

Arguments Before the Court

The Petitioner claimed that the Vice-Chancellor has adopted a revengeful approach and have acted with a vindictive attitude, due to the aforementioned reasons. 

However, the Vice-Chancellor claimed that all of the actions he took was in course of his duty. It was claimed that the Petitioner filed the present petition, misconstruing the said action.

Observations Made by the Court

The court quoted several precedents which have dealt with synonymous issues in the past.

The court referred to the case of Sheela Suryavanshi Vs. State of H.P. and others along with other cases. The precedents referred to, all expressed similar opinion and judgment. 

It was held that in cases regarding malafide intent, ”it can be said that the principal test of a due and proper exercise of the power is to ask the question: Was the transfer made for real administrative exigency?”. Thus, if the transfers were made to transfer particular persons with no reasonable purpose, such type of transfers would be termed as malafide. Such transfer orders are liable to be quashed. 

Further, the Court observed that the Vice-Chancellor had a reasonable ground for transferring the Petitioner. It was opined that just because the Vice-Chancellor had to pay the due amount, it does not render every action taken the Vice-Chancellor to be of malafide nature. The Court also observed that the accommodation in question, was in fact, rejected by the Petitioner.

Judgment

Based on the aforementioned statements, the Court held that the Petitioner is himself trying to give malafide colour to the transfer injunction. Further, the Court also held that if the Petitioner does not seek to move to another campus, the promotion can be rejected by him. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -