R.D. CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has assailed transfer order dated 17.6.2014 whereby he has been transferred from Chamba to Reckong Peo. Petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at Chamba. Petitioner has earlier remained posted at Chamba. Moreover, it is for the employer to see where an incumbent is to be posted in larger public interest. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement. However, this condition would not apply to the gazetted class I officers. There is no violation of any statutory ground while transferring the petitioner from Chamba to Reckong Peo.

(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.

(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: