Senior civil servant transfer upheld absent proved mala fides; later equivalence publication under service rules was only technical.

The SC held that a senior civil servant's transfer would not be interfered with unless mala fides or oblique motive were proved on a clear factual foundation; mere differences with the Chief Minister or dissatisfaction with posting recommendations were insufficient, and the administrative choice of the Chief Secretary remained within government prerogative. It also held that the transfer was not invalid for want of prior publication under Rule 9(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, because the equivalence decision had already been taken before the transfer took effect and the later publication was only a formal step. The alleged defect was therefore merely technical and caused no legal injury.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transfer and posting of the appellant was vitiated by mala fides or oblique motive; (ii) whether the transfer was invalid for want of prior declaration of equivalence under Rule 9(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954.

Issue (i): whether the transfer and posting of the appellant was vitiated by mala fides or oblique motive.

Analysis: The material placed did not establish a firm factual foundation for inferring malice. Differences of opinion between the appellant and the Chief Minister, and rejection of some recommendations on postings, were insufficient by themselves to prove that the transfer was punitive or intended to humiliate the appellant. A finding of mala fides could be drawn only from a clear factual matrix and not from conjecture or insinuation. The choice of a person to hold the post of Chief Secretary remained within the administrative prerogative of the Government, and no legal infirmity was shown on that score.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides was not proved and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer was invalid for want of prior declaration of equivalence under Rule 9(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954.

Analysis: The records showed that the Government had taken the decision to declare the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary before the impugned transfer took effect, and the formal publication followed on the next day. The earlier equivalence between the relevant posts and the immediate implementation of the transfer showed that the later publication was only a formal step to give effect to an already taken decision. Any delay in publication was, at the highest, a technical irregularity and did not cause legal injury warranting interference.

Conclusion: The transfer was not vitiated for breach of Rule 9(1), and the challenge on this ground also failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned transfer order and the Tribunal's dismissal of the application were upheld, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of a senior civil servant to another post will not be interfered with absent proved mala fides or a substantial legal injury, and a formal statutory publication made after an already taken equivalence decision does not invalidate the administrative action where the defect is merely technical.

---