VAIDEHI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward to challenge the order, dated 29.3.2010, wherein and by which she was transferred from the Sub Registrar office, Periamet coming under Central Madras Registration office to the Sub Registrar office at Red Hills.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Sub Registrar. She has come forward to challenge the transfer order dated 29.3.2010. THE ground taken by the petitioner was that only 40 days before, she was transferred from Red Hills to Periamet. Once again, she was transferred back to the old station. THErefore, it is illegal. THE present order came to be made cancelling the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, dated 25.2.2010 and restoring the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration, dated 15.2.2010.

(3.) THE High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan 1. 5. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in 2004 (11) SCC 402 (State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal), in paragraph 7 observed as follows:-