Nirmala Sharma vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

The petitioner is aggrieved by her transfer from Community Health Centre, Radhogarh to Sub Health Centre, Vijaypur (Radhogarh) on administrative ground. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that petitioner is at present place of posting since 1998 and distance between the said two places is only 15 kms. The transfer order is challenged on another ground that the transfer is made to accommodate the private respondent No. 3, who is transferred on her own request and costs. It is stated that it is the case of pure accommodation of an interested employee at the cost of the petitioner. Another ground of challenge is that the petitioner''s aged parents and three children are dependent on her, and therefore, transfer will uproot her family. It is also challenged on the ground that as per transfer policy, the entire process should be routed through the District Collector, whereas it has not been done in the present matter. The Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, held as under:-

3 We fail to appreciate the reasoning recorded by the High Court. If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned....

In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holing a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.

(Emphasis Supplied)

A bare perusal of aforesaid ratio makes it clear that merely because the person is brought on his/her own request will not mean that transfer order is arbitrary or capricious. The employer is competent to accommodate the persons on their own requests. Thus, this point is decided against the petitioner. So far, the allegation that transfer is not routed through the Collector, this is only an executive instruction (Annexure P-3). Apart from this, the order is signed by the competent authority and is approved by the concerned Ministry. The transfer policy is only a guideline and does not have any statutory force.

A Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2007) ILR M.P. 1329] has held that transfer order will not get vitiated on violation of transfer guidelines and proper course for the employee in such cases is to prefer a representation and request the departmental authorities to cancel the same.

Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner has remained posted at the present place since 1998 and is transferred only to a distance of 15 kms., I find no reason to interfere in this matter. However this will not preclude the petitioner to pursue her departmental representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.