BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is not a case for interference. Orders of transfer made in exercise of administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Guidelines for transfer are not statutory. They are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer. They are not exhaustive. In administration variety of situation not contemplated by the guidelines may arise which have to be taken into account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference. The learned single judge has found that even according to the guidelines, one guideline supports the appellant whereas another guideline favours the 5th respondent. The learned single judge has pointed out that the files disclose that the distance between the residence of the appellant and Chengala Panchayat and karadka Panchayat is the same. If that is so, there is really no great hardship which the appellant can complain about.

(2.) IT was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the observations made in Para. 4 of the judgment preclude the director from considering the request of the appellant for being transferred to or retained at Chengala Panchayat. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant, if aggrieved, could make a representation to the District panchayat Officer or the Director of Panchayats who can consider the same and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period not exceeding one month from the date of receipt of such representations. IT is further observed that if any modified orders of transfer are passed the persons likely to be affected thereby shall be given notice and hearing. These directions, with great respect, are not justified in matters like this. If the aggrieved parties approach this court challenging the transfer effected, without resorting to the remedy available of making representations to the superior authorities, they must take the decision of this court and the question of further consideration of their case by the administrative authorities thereafter should not normally be encouraged. IT is of the essence of the matter that finality is achieved as early as possible. A lingering dispute in regard to matters of transfer is detrimental to the interest of the administration. We should as far as possible avoid permitting the petitioners to make further representation to the authorities after the disposal of the writ petition. If transfers are to be modified on consideration of the representation, the question of hearing the person likely to be displaced by such transfer does not arise as no right of such government servant is affected. Transfer is an incidence of service and the government servant has no legal right in this behalf. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that the directions in Para. 4 of the judgment have to be vacated. " Subject to what is stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. . .