Priti Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

1) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2) This intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed, questioning the legality and validity of order dated 17/09/2019 passed by Writ Court dismissing W.P. No. 18923/2019 seeking quashment of transfer order dated 14/08/2019, whereby, the appellant, who is a Patwari, has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 29, Parauli, Tehsil Bamore to Halka No. 6 Bijaulipura, Tehsil Porsa, District Morena.

3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned transfer order dated 14/08/2019 has been passed in flagrant violation of transfer policy inasmuch as the appellant has been subjected to frequent transfer in order to accommodate the respondent No. 3. The appellant was earlier transferred vide order dated 05/07/2018 from Patwari Halka No. 82, Jaderua, Tehsil Bamore to Patwari Halka No. 29, Parauli, Tehsil Bamore on administrative exigency, but again she has been transferred vide order impugned dated 14/08/2019.

4) The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in absence of any allegation of malafide against any authority, it cannot be treated that transfer is stigmatic and the appellant has been singled out for transfer from one place to another. The transfer is purely of administrative exigency which is well within the competence of the Collector who is at liberty to utilize the manpower in best possible manner.

5) Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned transfer order and the same has been passed in administrative exigency. The transfer policy is nothing but a guideline which does not have any statutory force. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. On these grounds, prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate. Moreover, it is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].

7) In the instant case, the appellant has been transferred on administrative grounds. He has not been able to make out a case of malafide or violation of statutory policy, the twin grounds available for interference. The appellant has no statutory right to remain posted at any particular place.

8) In view of above, there is no palpable error apparent on the face of the impugned transfer order dated 14/08/2019 warranting interference by this Court. The view taken by the Writ Court cannot be found fault with.

9) Accordingly, the instant writ appeal deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed.