RAM SAHAY KANSANA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 24/08/2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5938/2012 (s) dismissing the petition of the appellant against the order of transfer.

(2.) THE appellant challenged the order of transfer on personal grounds. Learned writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground that a case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was pending against the appellant, hence, he could be transferred.

(3.) THE Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, : (2004) 11 SCC 402, with regard to interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of transfer, has held as under : 7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer / servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. this Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.