Padamlata Kaul vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul Judge

The petitioner has challenged her transfer order dated 13.7.2012 on the ground that it is passed to accommodate the respondent No.4 whose transfer order is cancelled on 13.7.2012. In other words, Shri J.P.Mishra submits that the transfer order is issued to accommodate the private respondent herein. It is also challenged on personal grounds including the ailment of son and mid session of daughter etc. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, held that merely because one person is transferred and in lieu thereof somebody else is accommodated, it cannot be concluded that transfer is arbitrary or capricious exercise of power. It is open for the administration to issue such orders to accommodate the employees on personal/administrative grounds. The relevant portion of the judgment reads 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 holding 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)

Transfer order can be interfered with only when it violates any statutory provision, changes service conditions of an employee to its detriment, proved to be malafide or passed by an incompetent authority. No such ground is available in the present case.

A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P.{(2007) ILR M.P. 1329} has already 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

In the present case, the petitioner is transferred to a distance of about 60 kms. Personal inconvenience is not a ground to interfere in transfer matters. I find no reason to interfere in the present matter. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to pursue his departmental representation. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. No cost.