Employee Has No Vested Right To Choose Place Of Posting & Designation: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently reiterated that an employee has no vested right to choose his place of posting or designation and it is only the prerogative of the employer to decide the same keeping the public interest and larger exigency in view.While setting aside challenge of the petitioner to the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –“…posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular employee is to be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency and the employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time…”Factual BackgroundThe petitioner was appointed as Off-set Machine Assistant in Postal Printing Press (PPP), Bhubaneswar on 01.08.2000. Subsequently, the Government took a decision to close the press on 09.05.2018 and to absorb its employees in other establishment of Department of Posts. Accordingly, a list of employees was prepared and they were asked to submit their option in the prescribed proforma and the petitioner also submitted his option with preferred place of posting as Circle Office, Bhubaneswar.The option of the petitioner was not considered but other eight employees were sent for training and absorbed in different establishments of the Postal Department. Again, seven employees were allowed to be retained in the PPP, Bhubaneswar against the post of Office Assistant till its complete closure. However, the petitioner was absorbed as MTS in RMS 'N' Division. Therefore, the petitioner argued that persons who were retained in PPP, Bhubaneswar as well as the employees absorbed in Postal Department were having either equal or lesser qualification than him and therefore, he submitted a representation to that effect praying consideration of his case.The representation was rejected by the opposite parties citing lack of administrative knowledge of the petitioner for being posted in the Circle Office as Postal Assistant. Being aggrieved, he challenged such rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which upheld decision of the opposite parties. Hence, this writ petition was filed.Court's ObservationsHaving considered the contentions and the order of the tribunal, the Court was of the view that the petitioner being an employee has no vested right to seek appointment to a particular post or at a particular place. Posting being an incidence of service, it is only for the employer to take a call on the above aspects, keeping in view the public interest and exigencies. To this effect, the Court placed reliance on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, wherein the Supreme Court held that the order of posting issued by the competent authority did not violate any legal right. The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his/her posting at a particular place.It further referred to the case of State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, where the top Court has unequivocally ruled that unless the transfer order and posting is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, the same cannot be lightly interfered with as a matter of routine.In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the Court did not deem it fit to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal and accordingly, observed –“…since this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the same unless it is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provision, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned counsel for the opposite parties, we find that the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in not accepting the prayer of the petitioner, is quite justified.”Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.Case Title: Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors. Case No: W.P.(C) No. 30756 of 2024Date of Judgment: January 21, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI; Mr. Millan Kumar and Ms. Sulochana Patra, Central Govt. Counsel; Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 14Click Here To Read/Download Order

Employee Has No Vested Right To Choose Place Of Posting & Designation: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags