Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh [March 13, 2024]
Background
The case concerned the legality of a transfer order issued to Sri Pubi Lombi, a government employee in Arunachal Pradesh. The transfer was initiated based on a note from a local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), rather than by the administrative department or in response to public interest or service exigencies. The Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court upheld the transfer, but the Division Bench reversed this decision, setting aside the transfer on grounds of arbitrariness and lack of application of mind.
Key Legal Issue
The principal issue was whether courts can interfere with transfer orders in the absence of a plea of malafide, violation of statutory provisions, or demonstrable prejudice to public interest—especially when the transfer is alleged to be arbitrary or influenced by a political figure.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, clarified the well-settled principles governing judicial review of transfer orders in service law:
Judicial interference in transfer matters is limited. Transfers are administrative decisions, and courts should not intervene unless there is clear evidence of:
Malafide exercise of power,
Violation of statutory rules or norms,
The transfer being detrimental to the employee holding a transferable post,
Or the transfer being prejudicial to public interest.
No plea of malafide or statutory violation was raised. In this case, the respondent who challenged the transfer did not allege any malafide intent, nor did they claim violation of any statutory provision. There was also no averment that the transfer was detrimental to public interest or to the employee’s rights.
Mere initiation by an MLA does not vitiate the transfer. The Court held that a transfer order, even if mooted by a political representative, cannot be set aside solely on that basis unless accompanied by specific allegations of malafide or illegality. The administrative process must be reasonable, but the absence of statutory or constitutional violations limits the scope for judicial review.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Single Judge’s order upholding the transfer. The Division Bench’s interference was found unjustified, as it was based merely on the perception of arbitrariness without any supporting plea or evidence of malafide or statutory breach.
Significance
The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere in routine administrative transfers unless there are clear and substantiated allegations of malafide, statutory violation, or public interest prejudice.
It provides guidance on the limits of judicial review in service matters, particularly where transfers are influenced by political recommendations but not shown to be illegal or malicious.
Citation:
Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024, decided on March 13, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments