Matadin Bhoj vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Petitioner has challenged his transfer from Tahsil Karera to Tahsil Pohri on the ground that it is at a distance of 90 Kms. Petitioner''s wife is suffering from sugar. He has not completed three years at the presence place, and, therefore, the transfer is contrary to Clause 9.10 of the transfer policy. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Clause 9.10 of the transfer policy is directory in nature. The entire policy is an executive instruction and does not have any binding force. 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

It is true that whenever a person is transferred, it causes inconvenience. However, personal inconvenience and ailment etc. are no ground of transfer. I am not inclined to interfere in the transfer matter. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail the departmental remedy pursue his representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.