Tej Krishan Koul vs State and ors.

R.C. Gandhi, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash Govt. Order No. 191PDD of 2001 dated 15.5.2001 passed by

respondent1 whereby petitioner has been transferred from (sic) Wing of the Power Development Department and post in Power Development

Corporation. He also seeks to quash Order No. PDC/MD/11 of 2001 dated 16.5.2001 issued in consequent to the Government Order dated

15.5.2001. The petitioner has been posted in Generation wing by the respondent4. He further seeks to quash Order No. CEG/PDC/Entt/E18 of

2001 dated 18.5.2001 issued by the Chief Engineer Generation Wing Power Development Corporation Srinagar adjusting the petitioner as

Assistant Executive Engineer Electrical.

The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that no person has been posted to relieve the petitioner. Petitioner being the senior

person was not required to be sent as juniormost person must go in terms of the SRO (SRO has not been made available, but only reference has

been made without mentioning even SRO No./year or its date). The transfer of the petitioner amounts deputation. He has not been consulted

which is in violation of Regulation 52 of Civil Service Regulations. The wife of the petitioner is ailing. Respondents should have taken into

consideration welfare of the petitioner. Petitioner has been sent for second time to Leh which is against the provisions of SRO.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made out by reference of any law that he was not required to be sent twice to Leh. He has also not

made out that he being not junior should not have been sent. Ailment of the wife is no ground. A public servant when joins government employment

is aware that such exigencies are bound to arise during the service and the accepts service knowing fully well that he has to face all these problems.

Respondents no doubt must take into consideration the welfare of the employees and for that petitioner should have made representation to the

respondents providing them an opportunity to appreciate and deal with the problem, if any, of the petitioner. Ailment of the members of the family

is no ground unless provided by law or standing order creating any right to the public servant executable in the court of law.

His further submission is that his transfer is deputation and his consent should have been taken before transferring him to Power Development

Corporation. In a similar circumstance this question came up for consideration of this court in SWP No. 652/99 and while dealing with such

submission the court has observed as under :

In the instant case, the order of transfer is purely an order of transfer simplicitor. It involves no deputation. It appears that petitioner is labouring

under some misconception that his transfer to Power Development Corporation without his consent is bad. Reason being that it is specific case of

the learned counsel for the respondents that since the creation of Power Development Department are being sent there to work and discharge their

duties. Thus in the same manner petitioner has been transferred to Power Development Corporation. This involves violation of neither any

fundamental right nor any service conditions. In the case of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1993(3) SCT 564 (SC) : AIR 1991 Supreme

Court 533 , what was held and is relevant for this case was in the following terms :

The Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are 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 malafide. A Govt. 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.

To similar effect is the decision of this Court in LPA 131/98 dated 10.3.1999, titled G.D. Thappa v. State and others whereby decision in SWP

11/98 dated 29.8.1998 of the learned Single Judge was upheld and the LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench.

The Court has very limited jurisdiction in interfering with the transfer orders. It is prerogative of the employer to post the petitioner where his

service can be best utilised. This proposition of law has also been settled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt,

1995(4) SCT 225 (SC) : (AIR 1993 SC 2486) holding that :

This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place

to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting.

Ordinarily the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of

the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner could not make out any cause for admission of the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed

alongwith connected CMPs.