BEENA KALA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition un der section 226 of the Constitution of In dia, the petitioner has sought the follow ing reliefs : (i) To issue a writ, order, rule or di rection by way of certiorari to quash the transfer order of the petitioner dated 06-07-2006 filed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ pe tition. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction by way of mandamus directing the respondents not relieve the pe titioner from Bal Vikas Pariyojna Sitarganj, U. S. Nagar. (iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and cir cumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Khatima in the year 1983. THEreafter, she served the department from the year 1987 to 1991 at Sitarganj, 1991 to 1992 at Gadarpur and 1992 to 2003 at Khatima. She has been working in Sitarganj, U. S. Nagar since November 2003 to 2006. Vide order dated 06-07-2006 passed by the Director-respondent no. 2, the petitioner was transferred from Sitarganj to Dwarahat. Feeling aggrieved by the transfer order, this petition has been filed.

(3.) THERE is no malafide or violation of statutory rules in the case in hand. In the case of S. L. Abbas (supra), the respondent-Abbas was working at Shillong in the office of the Botanical Survey of India and his wife was also working there in Central Government office. He was transferred from Shillong to Pauri in the hills of U. P. (now in Uttaranchal ). He challenged the transfer order before the Central Administrative Tribunal on medical ground and also on the ground of vio lation of guidelines contained in the Government of India OM dated 3-4-1986. The Tribunal allowed the peti tion and quashed the transfer order When the matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and observed as under: "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate author ity to decide. Unless the order of trans fer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Govern ment on the subject. Similarly if a per son makes any representation with re spect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same hav ing regard to the exigencies of admin istration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a le gally enforceable right. "