Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on March 25, 2025, said that if a government employee holding a particular post is transferred on public interest, he carries with him his existing status including seniority to the transferred post. However, if an officer is transferred at his own request, such a transferred employee will have to be accommodated in the transferred post, subject to the claims and status of the other employees at the transferred place, as their interests cannot be varied without there being any public interest in the transfer.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra explained that subject to specific provision of the rules governing the services, such transferees are generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. The rationale in assignment of such seniority is to avoid heartburn of existing employees in the transferred cadre, the court said, citing Surendra Singh Beniwal Vs Hukam Singh, (2009).

The court said the purpose and object of transfer in public interest is singular and straightforward, i.e., to ensure effective and efficient administration. This is for the reason that administration and provisioning goods and services in a welfare State requires the government to deploy officers at different places and the exigencies of service take within its sweep the need to redeploy or transfer them from one place to another for myriad reasons, all intended to subserve the purpose of the State. All these decisions are transfers in public interest, it pointed out.

On the other hand, where a transfer is sought at the request of the officer and if the government is satisfied with the genuineness of the request, it may accept the request and direct transfer. This is fairness in action as governmental power accommodates, as it must, human needs and vulnerabilities. However, this kind of transfer, effected at the request of the officer, does not partake the character of a transfer made in the public interest, the court added.

"Transfers characterised as in public interest are founded, sourced, and rooted in administrative exigencies and nothing else. Effecting or transferring employees at their behest is equally important but exercise of that power and discretion is to subserve a different cause or a value, which is distinct from transfer in public interest. It is necessary to draw a clear distinction between these two, as their purpose, procedure, and consequence are distinct. This distinction is in fact recognised and incorporated in the Rules," the bench said.   

The court was examining the question whether the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another would impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer was made in public interest or at the employee's own request.

The fundamental principle underlying the relationship between the State and its employee is that it is governed by administrative rules, rather than contractual agreements. In view of the power of the State to modify the terms and conditions of services by unilaterally amending the Rules, this kind of employment is defined as status, the bench said.

Dealing with an appeal filed by the Secretary to the Government Department of Health and Family Welfare and another, the court held that the Karnataka High Court had fallen into an error by blurring the distinction between the two functions and treating transfer made at the request of the officer on medical grounds as equivalent to transfer in public interest. Keeping the distinction is essential since origin and the consequences that follow are distinct, the bench said.

Respondent K C Devaki was appointed as a staff nurse in the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, State of Karnataka in the year 1979. She requested to change her cadre to first division assistant on medical grounds. 

On April 19, 1989, the government issued the order changing the cadre of the respondent from staff nurse to first division assistant on medical grounds and to take the position below the last candidate on the basis of her consent. She continued in the new position as first division assistant at the place from 1989 to 2007. 

However, when the seniority list was released in 2007, she approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal challenging the final seniority list on the ground that her seniority must be fixed as per her initial appointment as staff nurse on January 05, 1979 and not on the basis of her entry into the new cadre on January 19, 1989 as first division assistant. The tribunal allowed her original application. The high court dismissed the writ petition by the state government, challenging the decision.

Having examined the rules that governed the service of the respondent, namely the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 19772 and Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that seniority has to be with effect from 1989 only". 

The court held the decision of the government in issuance of final seniority list of October 01, 2007 granting seniority w.e.f. April 19, 1989 was in consonance with Rule 16 of 1977 recruitment rules. This decision is also in consonance with Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules which specifically provide that where transfers are made at the request of the officer, the employee would be placed below all the officers borne in that class in the transferred post, court held. 

The bench thus said, "We are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in directing the appellant to grant seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division Assistant with effect from the date in which the said respondent has entered service in the cadre of Staff Nurse from 05.01.1979, instead of 19.04.1989, when she was appointed in the new cadre of First Division Assistant."

The court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court's order of October 25, 2021.

Case Title: The Secretary to the Government Department of Health and Family Welfare and Anr Vs K C Devaki