https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287680 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. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:05:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287680 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287680