Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri S.R. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

Facts in brief in the present writ petition as submitted by counsel for the Petitioner are that the Petitioner is II Ird Class Group(A) employee working on the post of Clerk in the office of Jal Sansthan District Banda has been transferred to the office of Jal Sansthan District Hamirpur. He further submits that the impugned order of transfer is illegal in nature as the same is politically motivated and will disturb the structure of Petitioners family causing irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order of transfer dated 16.05.1995 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) so far it related to the Petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with its administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unless it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide.

Admittedly, in the present case, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the Petitioner is holding the transferable post rather the same is admitted by the counsel for the Petitioner as such in view of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:

In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department.

The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, and N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, holding therein if a person holding a transferable post, is transferred, there is no violation of any statutory/mandatory rules then the same is not subject to judicial review.

Further, in the case of Chief General Manager (Telecom), N.E. Telecom Circle and another Vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:

It is needless to emphasise that a government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the Respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting. Since the Respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala, therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the Respondent''s transfer to Dimpur.

In view of the above said facts, present writ petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.