Kalyan Singh Gurjar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Petitioner is aggrieved by transfer order dated 13.7.2012, whereby he is transferred from Khadiyahar to Jhundpura (Sabalgarh). The petitioner was transferred earlier vide Annexure P-3 dated 7.6.2011 from Khadiyahar to Datia but he was not permitted to join at Datia and the said transfer order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4627/2011. This Court by interim order dated 16.8.2011 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to join back at Khadiyahar and now by impugned order he is transferred to Jhundpura. Since for whatever reason earlier transfer order did not take place and petitioner did not continue at Datia, it cannot be said that earlier transfer order became a reason to hold that the petitioner was subjected to a frequent transfer.

The transfer is a condition of service. It is settled in law that the transfer order can be interfered with only when it runs contrary to the statutory provision, changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment, issued by an incompetent authority or the transfer order is proved to be a malafide one, etc.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P reported in ILR (2007) M.P 1329 has held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity.

.......Emphasis supplied

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Interference is declined. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail departmental remedy and pursue his representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.