Himmat Singh vs State of M.P. and Another

Heard on the question of admission.

This intra-court appeal preferred u/s 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 1732/2011, dated 25-01-2011 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant against his order of transfer.

It appears that the Appellant was earlier transferred from Insemination Centre, Sihore to Veternianry Dispensary, Kuhdia, District-Harda, vide order dated 4-5-2010 being aggrieved by which he made a representation on 7-5-2010 to the authority concerned. Consequently, the Respondents considering the representation of the Appellant modified the same vide order dated 11-6-2010, a copy whereof is marked as Annexure-P/4, transferring him to Veterinary Dispensary, Nimoda in District-Sehore itself. Thereafter, the Appellant again made a representation against the aforesaid modified order of transfer considering which the Respondents, by the impugned order dated 4-9-2010, have withdrawn the order dated 11-6-2010 whereby he had been transferred within the Sehore district, as a result of which the initial order dated 7-5-2010 is revived. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition against the order dated 4-9-2010.

Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed on the Petitioner''s representation and, therefore, he has only himself to blame. The submissions of the Petitioner against the impugned order only relate to violation of the transfer policy which alone cannot be a ground for interference with the order of transfer. 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 provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See: Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, ]. 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 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.

In the case in hand the Appellant has not questioned the order on the ground of violation of any statutory provision or on the ground of malafide. It is made clear that in case the Petitioner seeks restoration of the modified order of transfer dated 11-6-2010, he may approach the authority by filing a representation. It needs no emphasis to state that the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority expeditiously, in accordance with law.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.