SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The transfer is an incidence of service. It is for the employer where an employee has to be posted in public interest. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. Petitioner has not alleged any specific mala fides. He has remained posted within the radius of 25 kms since 2007. Petitioner has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular station.

(3.) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 8 SCC 337 have held that in a matter of transfer of government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. Their Lordships have held as under: