Rajeev Aurthor vs State of U.P.

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ.—The petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) in Railway Sachal Dal, Agra since 25.7.2008, has been transferred to the Post of Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) Evam Rajya Prtinidhi, Varanasi by the order dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition).

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the said order dated 31.12.2009 in so far as it pertains to the petitioner.

We have heard Sri Rajesh Pathik. learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the record.

It is settled position that transfer is incident of service. Normally, transfer orders are not interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless there is violation of statutory rules or there is mala fide in the issuance of transfer order. [See Riaz Ahmad Vs. Additional Registrar (Administration), Co-operative Societies and Others, .

It is submitted by Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order in respect of the petitioner has been passed mala fide on account of complaint made by one Anand Gupta, whose Truck was intercepted on 6.3.2009 by the petitioner alongwith other officers of the Railway Sachal Dal, Agra.

Sri Pathik has referred to the averments made in paragraphs Nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition.

We have considered the submission made by Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same.

The averments made in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 are totally vague and lacking in material particulars, and the same do not show any mala fide on the part of the respondent. No Officer has been impleaded by name alleging mala fide against him.

It is noteworthy that the alleged incident took place on 6.3.2009 while the transfer order has been passed on 31.12.2009, i.e., after more than 9 months. It is also pertinent to note that by the said order dated 31.12.2009, 19 Assistant Commissioners have been transferred from one place to another. Evidently, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is a part of chain of transfers made by the respondent. The transfer of the petitioner by the said order dated 31.12.2009 cannot, in our view, be said to be mala fide.

No violation of any statutory rule has been shown by the petitioner.

Sri Rajesh Pathik, however, relies upon the transfer policy issued on 27.5.2008 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) for the year 2008-09. Sri Pathik submits that the transfer order dated 31.12.2009 in respect of the petitioner is against the transfer policy.

We have considered the submission made by Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same.

The transfer policy relied upon by the petitioner is for the year 2008-09 while the transfer order has been issued on 31.12.2009. Moreover, the transfer policy merely pertains to guidelines for the transfer to be made in respect of the employees of the Government. The guidelines are not statutory in nature. In our opinion, any alleged deviation from transfer policy does not entitle the petitioner to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Dharam Chand and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

The writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

However, it will be open to the petitioner to make representation to the authority concerned in regard to his personal problems, and the authority concerned will decide such representation expeditiously.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.