Manjulata Yadav vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Petitioner Smt. Manjulata Yadav is present in person. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order, Annexure P-1, whereby she is transferred from Bhitarwar, Gwalior to Jabalpur in administrative exigency. The petitioner submits that her husband is presently posted at Mathura and small kids of 5 and 3 years of age respectively are residing with her and her mother. The petitioner had preferred a representation on 7.6.2012 praying for her transfer to District Headquarter Gwalior from Bhitarwar so that she can look after her small kids and aged and ailing mother. The petitioner submits that by Annexures P-3 and P-4 the petitioner was transferred at different places and, therefore, it amounts to frequent transfer.

I have heard the petitioner at length.

So far alleged ground of frequent transfer is concerned a bare perusal of Annexures P-3 and P-4 shows that the petitioner was posted within Gwalior District. These are not transfer orders and, therefore, the said orders cannot be a ground to treat it to be frequent transfer. The Apex Court in B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , held that protection from frequent transfer is provided to low paid class-3 and class-4 employees. Relevant portion of it reads as under:-

But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the government is not conductive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of class III and class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer.

In the present case, earlier local postings of the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of "frequent transfer" nor the petitioner is a low paid class-3 or class-4 employee. Thus, the said principle cannot be pressed into service qua the present petitioner.

Transfer is a condition of service. 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

Considering the aforesaid, I do not find any reason which warrants interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, transfer causes inconvenience but such inconvenience is no ground for interference. Consequently, petition is devoid of merit and substance and is hereby dismissed. However, this order will not precluded the petitioner to pursue her departmental representation.