The Supreme Court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in transfer orders.

In the case of SRI PUBI LOMBI v. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the issue of political influence in transfer orders for government employees.

Pubi Lombi, a Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE), was transferred to Leparada from Kanubari in November 2022. A Local MLA intervened and requested a change in the transfer order, citing public interest. Subsequently, the order was modified in April 2023, retaining the appellant in his previous position.

The Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the modified transfer order, finding no evidence of malafide intent. However, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, set aside the Single Judge's decision, arguing that the MLA's involvement vitiated the order., but the Supreme Court while allowing the Civil Appeal against the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court held that “modified order of transfer has been passed in public interest after due application of mind, and the Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of learned Single Judge”.

The Supreme Court also held that "6. interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference to the transfer must be eschewed.”

The Supreme Court's Decision emphasized on the following Key Points:

Limited Judicial Review: Courts can only intervene in transfer orders if there is a clear statutory violation, malafide intent, or detriment to public interest.
MLA's Recommendation: An MLA's recommendation for a transfer does not automatically invalidate the order. MLAs are responsible for conveying public grievances, including those about government officials.
No Malafide or Statutory Violation: In the present case, no malafide intent or statutory violation was proven.
No Detriment to Employee: The modified order did not affect the appellant's salary or status, placing him in the same location with the same responsibilities.

Basis of Decision:
-Precedents established by the Supreme Court in previous cases, including Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and N.K. Singh v. Union of India. -Principle that interference in transfer orders is only justified based on judicially manageable grounds. -Requirement to implead parties against whom malafide allegations are made.

The Supreme Court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in transfer orders. Courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the administrative authority unless there are clear legal grounds. The Court recognized that MLAs play a role in representing public concerns. Their recommendations for transfers can be considered by the appropriate authorities, but they do not automatically invalidate the orders. The appellant failed to provide evidence of any malafide intent or violation of statutory provisions in the modified transfer order. The Court noted that the modified order did not harm the appellant's career or financial well-being. He remained in the same location, with the same responsibilities and remuneration.
SRI PUBI LOMBI v. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4129 OF 2024
CORAM:Justice J. K. Maheshwari & Justice Sanjay Karol
Dated: 13-03-2024
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/40114/40114202310150151308Judgement13-Mar-2024.pdf