LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/sri-pubi-lombi-vs-the-state-of-arunachal-pradesh-ors-20240313/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Sri Pubi Lombi vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
13 March 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
J.K. Maheshwari, Sanjay Karol
Citation
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 407 : 2024 INSC 200
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 3 S.C.R. 407 : 2024 INSC 200
Issue for consideration
In absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, whether the interference made by the Division Bench of the High Court in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge was justified merely on the pretext that the proposed modification (in transfer order) is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by a MLA.
Headnote

Service Law – Modified transfer order – Challenge to – The Single Judge of the High Court by upholding modified order of transfer dated 20.04.2023 observed that transfer made on the basis of UO Note dated 28.02.2023 put up by the MLA itself cannot be held to vitiate the transfer until there is an allegation of any malafide exercise of powers by the respondents-authorities in issuing the order – However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge – Propriety:

Held: It is settled that the person challenging the transfer ought to prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest – The interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction of any professed norm or principle – In view of the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted – In the instant case, in absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA – The Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court. [Paras 9.2, 10, 14] Judicial Review – Scope – Transfer orders – Discussed. [Paras

9.2 - 9.5]

Keywords: Service Law · Transfer order · Modified transfer order · Plea of malafide · Violation of statutory provision · Judicial interference · Judicial Review · Transfer prejudicial to public interest

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment J. K. Maheshwari J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 266/2023 reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 199 (AP) 2023 has been assailed by the appellant (respondent No. 5 in Writ Court). The learned Single Judge by upholding order of transfer dated 20.04.2023 observed that transfer made on the basis of UO Note dated 28.02.2023 put up by the Member of the Legislative Assembly, 29-Basar (ST) Assembly Constituency (MLA) itself cannot
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →