Vidya Shrivastava vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—He is heard on admission. Petitioner is transferred from Ghosipura to Amarohi within same block. It is challenged on personal grounds such as the petitioner''s husband is posted at Ashok Nagar, daughter is studying at Guna and mother-in-law suffering from paralysis is depending on her.

This is settled in law that transfer order can be interfered with only if it runs contrary to the statutory provision, proved to be a malafide one, changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment or issued by an incompetent authority. Mere violation of transfer policy, will not render transfer order as illegal. The Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR(2007) M.P 1329 [R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P] 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)

None of these grounds are available, on which interference can be made in the present petition. Petitioner is transferred only to a distance of 50 km. Whenever an employee is transferred, it causes inconvenience, however inconvenience cannot be a ground to interfere in the petition. In the result, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition is not entertained. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to pursue her departmental representation.