LEELA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was transferred to Government Primary School, Nagri. She joined her duties there on 17th February, 2009. However, vide office order dated 15th November, 2010, she was transferred from Government Primary School, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Nagri to Government Primary School, Tangri (Nankhari). She assailed the transfer order dated 15th November, 2010 by filing C.W.P. No. 7714 of 2010. It was decided on 26.08.2011. The transfer order dated 15th November, 2010 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties at Government Primary School, Nagri till she completes her normal tenure of 3 to 5 years. The petitioner joined her duties at Government Primary School, Nagri pursuant to the judgment dated 26.08.2011 on 14.09.2011. Now, the petitioner has been transferred vide Annexure P-3, dated 15.05.2012 from Government Primary School, Nagri (K-II) to Government Primary School, Dubloo (K-II) vice respondent No.5.

(2.) REPLIES have been filed by all the respondents. According to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, the petitioner has remained posted in Government Primary School, Paindly, Mashobra Block w.e.f. 06.04.2004 to 18.10.2008. Thereafter, she remained posted at Government Primary School, Tikker Kohan, Mashobra Block w.e.f. 19.10.2008 to 16.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Government Primary School, Nagri, Mashobra Block on 14.02.2009, where she joined her duties on 17.02.2009. The distance between Government Primary School, Tikker Kohan, Mashobra Block and Government Primary School, Nagri, Mashobra Block is two Kms. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has remained posted within a radius of less than 20 Kms. w.e.f. 06.04.2004 till 18.05.2012. Now, she has almost completed 3 1/2 years at Government Primary School, Nagri. The Court has directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete her normal tenure. The respondents, in the present case, while transferring the petitioner, has taken into consideration the posting of the petitioner within a radius of 20 kms. for the last eight years w.e.f. 06.04.2004. The petitioner has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. The scope of judicial review in these cases is limited. The transfer is an incidence of service. The transfer can be challenged if there is infraction of statutory rules or the order of transfer is actuated with legal malafides.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 have held that 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 because no Government can function in such manner. Their Lordships have further held that Government servant is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Their Lordships have further held that 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. Their Lordships have further held that courts are always reluctant to interfere with transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. Their Lordships have held as under: