Vijay Kumar Chaurasia vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—This special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.4.2004.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant is sub-inspector of police in U.P. By the order dated 28.2.2004 he was transferred from District--Firozabad to the Government Railway Police. Against this order he filed a writ petition in which the impugned order was passed.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner''s transfer was stayed till 15.5.2004 in view of the Lok Sabha Elections in respect of which the Election Commission has enforced the model code of conduct.

We see no infirmity in the impugned order. Obviously the petitioner cannot insist on remaining at the place of his posting forever. He is on a transferable post, and transfer is an exigency of service vide B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ; Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, ; Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, ; Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, .

In State of Punjab and others Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (paragraph 3 of the said AIR) :

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the courts below interfering with the order of transfer of a 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 inquashing 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 in justice was caused."

In Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 10 of the said SCC) :

"It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be Interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. (See N.K. Nigam v. Union of India)."

As held in Riad Ahmad v. Additional Registrar (Administration). Co-operative Societies U.P., Lucknow (2O03) 1 UPLBEC 262, this Court is disinclined to interfere with a transfer order as transfer is an incident of service and the Court does not interfere normally in the transfer orders unless there is violation of any statutory Rule or the transfer is mala fide.

The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has also been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and others, . State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, , etc. This Court following the aforesaid principles laid by the Supreme Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. 1997 (2) AWC 2.242 : (1997) 3 ESC 1668 : (1998) AllLJ 70 and Onkarnath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow 1998 (1) AWC 2.19 : (1997) 3 ESC 1866 : 1998 AllLJ 245, has held that the principle of law unfolded in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee and is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.

For the reasons given above there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.