SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the im pugned transfer order dated 30-05-2006 contained in Annexure No.-3 passed by the respondent No. 2. ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful func tioning of the petitioner as Kshetriya Yuva Kalyan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal Adhikari, Birokhal District Pauri Garhwal. iii) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. "

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Kshetriya Yuva Kalyan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal Adhikari on 24-02- 1987 and he was posted in the different places of the Uttaranchal. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was elected as a Presi dent of employees union of Prantiya Rakshak Dal Evam Yuva Kalyan Karamchari Singh, Uttaranchal at district level. THE petitioner had been work ing at Birokhal, district Pauri Garhwal and he had been transferred from Birokhal, district Pauri to district Tehri Garhwal. After receiving the transfer or der, the petitioner fell ill and he was under treatment in the Government hos pital Birokhal and during that period he remained on leave. It was further pleaded that the State Government had issued the transfer policy and the im pugned transfer order of the petitioner had been made in violation of the trans fer policy. It was further pleaded that the petitioner being the President of the union at district level, entitled not to be transferred for two years from the place where he is posted. It was further pleaded that the petitioner's children are studying in central school Birokhal in class 10th and 7th. THE transfer order also causes inconvenience to the peti tioner due to the studies of his children. When the higher authorities did not can cel the transfer order of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this writ pe tition before this court.

(3.) ANY person serving within the State of Uttaranchal, his services are subject to transfer from one place to other. It has been held in Shilpi Base (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC p/659 that the appellants who were the lady teachers were transferred of their desired places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents who were displaced by the appellants challenged the validity of the transfer or der before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India which was allowed and the transfer order was quashed. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing as under : "in our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide, A govern ment servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to pub lic interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. "