Kishan Pal Singh vs Collector and Others

M. Katju, J.—This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.7.2004. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In our opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

The writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 5 in this appeal) is a Lekhpal working in Aawal Khera, Tahsil Etmadpur, district Agra. By the order dated 11.6.2004, the Petitioner was transferred within the same Tahsil in Agra district.

The learned single Judge interfered with the impugned order on the ground that it was violative of certain Government orders. It is well-settled that a transfer order cannot be interfered with by this Court merely because it violates some Government order. It is only if the transfer order violates the statutory rules or is mala fide that the Court can interfere vide Dharam Chand v. State of U.P. 2003 (52) ALR 506; Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, ; Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, ; Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, . The same view has been taken by this Court in Riyaz v. Addl. Registrar 2002 (5) ESC 124; Pramod Charan Saxena v. Director Panchayat Raj 2002 (5) ESC 34; Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. 1983 AWC 195 and Veerpal Singh v. State of U.P. 1983 AWC 165, etc.

It is well-settled that transfer is an exigency of service and the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the same.

The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and the entire law has been settled by a catena of decisions. It is entirely for the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service, Vide Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, ; Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, ; Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, ; Chief General Manager (Telecom), N.E. Telecom Circle and another Vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others, ; State of U.P. v. Dr. R.N. Prasad 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 151; Union of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Dan Singh 1995 (Suppl) 3 SCC 214; N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, ; Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa 1996 (1) AWC 2.14 (SC) : 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 169; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and others, ; State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, and Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Another, .

An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as a transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting. In Gujarat Electricity Board and Another Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, , the Supreme Court has observed as under:

Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has a legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to another is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to another is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.

A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle (supra).

In Shilpi Bose (supra), the Apex Court has held that an order of transfer/posting "issued by the competent authority did not violate any of her legal right". An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his/her posting at a particular place.

The Petitioner was clearly on a transferable post. Hence we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. It is entirely for the authorities concerned to decide which Government servant will be posted in which place and this is not a matter for this Court to encroach upon. Judges must exercise self-restraint and not interfere with the functions which do not pertain to their jurisdiction.

With the above observations the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside.