CWP No.21066 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.21066 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Kewal Masih ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner, who is working as Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-II, has challenged the order dated 1st November, 2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from Primary Health Centre, Bhullar, District Gurdaspur to T.B. Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel submits that apparently it is a midterm transfer, which is against the policy. This apart, a perusal of the transfer order shows that it has neither been passed in public interest nor due to administrative exigency. The same, thus, deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working at Gurdaspur for last three years. He has now been transferred to T.B. Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The contention that transfer has neither been passed in public interest nor due to administrative exigency, is without any merit. CWP No.21066 of 2011 2 In the transfer order the grounds thereof need not specifically be mentioned. Transfer is not only an exigency but an incidence of service. As and when transfer order is issued by the administrative authority, the reasons for such a transfer need not be conveyed to the employee. The policy guidelines issued by the Government are not in the nature of a mandate. This question was answered by this court in Jit Singh Mallah vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, The Punjab Law Reporter (2007-1) 579, wherein it has been observed as under:- “3. We are unable to accept any of the submissions made by the learned counsel. Firstly, the petitioner being a Government servant has no inherent right to choose the place of his posting. Secondly, the instructions relied upon by the petitioner are mere guidelines. The said guidelines cannot be said to be mandatory and do not, therefore, create any legal right in favour of the petitioner. This question has been specifically considered by the B. Varadha Rao V. State of Karnataka and others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1955 wherein it has been clearly held that the guidelines such as Annexure P-11 do not confer any legal right on an employee. The transfer of an employee is not only an incident of service but a condition of service as well. It is the prerogative of the authorities concerned and this Court is not to normally interfere except when it is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of a statutory provision or has been passed by an incompetent authority. None of the said factors has been shown or even pleaded in the present case. We are also of the opinion that the order passed by the respondents is purely administrative in nature and, therefore, cannot be termed as either arbitrary or whimsical.” CWP No.21066 of 2011 3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment in Jit Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered view that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court is made out. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 15.11.2011 'rajpal'