K KALVIKARASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions are employees working under the control of the second respondent, viz., Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. They have come forward to challenge the orders of transfer dated 29.7.2011. The following table will show the name of the employee, the writ petition number, the present working station and the place to which they are posted on transfer:

(2.) MRS .Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.C.Uma, contended that though the orders of transfer had stated that it was on administrative grounds, there was really no administrative ground and the second respondent had clearly flouted the various government guidelines that are issued in this regard. She stated that the government guidelines are issued pursuant to the executive power vested on the State and they amount to a subordinate legislation. Even though no rules have been framed, the government orders can hold the place of the rules and as long as they are not ultra vires to the statutory rules, they cannot be ignored, especially by a subordinate like the second respondent. The second respondent is bound to implement the orders of the government.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2009] 15 SCC 178, in paragraphs [8] to [10], has observed as follows: "8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, [2004] 11 SCC 402, SCC p. 406, para 7).