B.M. Goswamy vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Alok Aradhe, J.—With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.3.2014 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 24.2.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No. 164/2014 has been rejected.

Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner by order dated 28.1.2014 was transferred from the post of Village Agriculture Extension Officer, Development Block, Chhatarpur to Development Block, Barigarh, District Chhatarpur. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2224/2014 which was dismissed by order dated 07.2.2014. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred writ appeal, namely, W.A. No. 164/2014 by which it was directed that in case the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by Division Bench the petitioner submitted a representation which has been rejected by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation of petitioner has been rejected without assigning any cogent reason and with a view to accommodate the respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, , State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, , The Government of A.P. Vs. G. Venkata Ratnam, and State of Haryana and Others Vs. Kashmir Singh and Another etc. etc., . Similarly in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Another, once again dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, Supreme Court reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at the best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of their grievance. Transfer made contrary to policy can also not be interfered with.

Admittedly, the petitioner has been posted in Block Chhatarpur since 07.12.1990. He has only been transferred from one block to another block in the same district. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any legal right vested in the petitioner to remain posted in Block Chhatarpur. The order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provision nor the same suffers from the vice of malafides.

For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.