Usha Bansal vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

Petitioner is aggrieved by her transfer from Banmor to Jhundpura on administrative ground. It is stated that the petitioner was posted at Manjupura from 1988 to 2007 and now again she has been posted there on the basis of a complaint of private respondent, a political person. The petitioner''s children are studying at Banmore and impugned order will uproot the family. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged transfer order on the ground of malafide. However, the complaint (Annexure P/4) on which reliance is placed by Shri D.P. Singh to establish the malice, shows that it was made to the Collector. The impugned transfer order is issued by Chief Executive Officer. There is no material on record to connect the transfer order with the alleged complaint (Annexure P-4). The petitioner has not chosen to implead the transferring authority eo nomine/byname and in absence thereto no allegation of malafide can be accepted. Transfer is a condition of service. The transfer order can be interfered with only when it runs contrary to the statutory provision, changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment, issued by an incompetent authority or the transfer order is proved to be a malafide one, etc.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P reported in ILR (2007) M.P 1329 has held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity.

.......Emphasis supplied

On the basis of aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in the matter. No interference is warranted. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail the departmental remedy and pursue her representation. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.