AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 2nd March, 2009, (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Newra, Raipur to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, Raipur, on administrative grounds.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier posted at Kurud. By order dated 2.8.2008 (Annexure P/2), he was transferred to Newra. Again, vide order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner has been transferred from Newra to Kasdol and the said transfer has been made on the instance of the respondent No. 2 as the respondent No. 2 has good political approach. The second contention of the petitioner is that his ailing parents reside at Bhilai and his children are studying at Bhilai which is 70 K.M. away from Nevara. Hence, the impugned transfer order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside.
Be that as it may, it is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, noncompetence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations.
The court or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. (See State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lall).
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Ors. summed up the scope of interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as under:
The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.
With regard to the other permissible grounds i.e. non-competence of the officer concerned passing the order or infraction of statutory rules and regulations, no case has been made out.
Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case and in view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order asto costs.