Kiran Raj

In a recent ruling, a division bench of the Orissa High Court reaffirmed the principle that employers retain exclusive authority to determine employee postings based on administrative exigencies, dismissing a challenge against an order denying an employee’s request for absorption in a preferred role. The court emphasized that absent evidence of mala fide intent or statutory violations, judicial intervention in posting decisions is unwarranted. The petitioner’s claims of unequal treatment and improper denial of a specific position were rejected, with the bench noting the absence of documentary proof to substantiate allegations of administrative bias.

The dispute arose following the closure of the Postal Printing Press (PPP), Bhubaneswar, by the Government of India on May 9, 2018. The petitioner, employed as an Off-set Machine Assistant at PPP since August 1, 2000, sought absorption as a Postal Assistant in the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar, under the Department of Posts. He submitted his preference via a proforma on January 7, 2019, but was instead absorbed as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the RMS ‘N’ Division on May 15, 2019. Subsequent representations led to his redesignation as a Sorting Assistant in the same division, though he continued demanding placement in the Circle Office.

The petitioner contested this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, arguing that colleagues with equal or lesser qualifications were absorbed in preferred roles, while his administrative competence was unfairly questioned. The respondents, representing the Union of India, countered that the petitioner lacked requisite administrative knowledge for the Circle Office role and denied any discriminatory intent. They further noted that an interim order dated March 20, 2020, had already posted the petitioner as a Postal Assistant in the Bhubaneswar Division, rendering his grievance moot.

CAT dismissed the Original Application (O.A. No.260/00083 of 2020) on July 22, 2024, observing that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of superior administrative skills or prove that allegations against him—obtained via RTI—directly influenced his posting. The tribunal also underscored that posting decisions fall within the employer’s domain, guided by operational needs and employee proficiency.

The High Court, examining the matter under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, concurred with CAT’s findings. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench stated that posting and transfer decisions are inherent to employment terms and subject to administrative discretion. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 532), the 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.”

Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (AIR 2004 SC 2165), it was “held that transfer and posting of an employee at any particular place or position is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service… Unless the transfer order and posting is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of statutory provision… the same cannot be lightly interfered with.”

The bench noted the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate mala fides or procedural violations, stating, “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.” It further observed that the petitioner’s eventual posting as a Postal Assistant in Bhubaneswar Division—under the same pay scale—negated his claim of prejudice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming CAT’s order. It declined to interfere with the employer’s decision, stating, “we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.” No costs were awarded.

Case Title: Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.30756 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho

[Read/Download order]