HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 982(S/S)2006 Girish Chandra Mahtolia, S/o late Sri Tara Dutt Mahtolia, Resident of Adarsh Nagar, Talli Bamori, Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, Nainital, At present – Supply Inspector, Office of District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. -----Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner, Department of Food & Civil Supply Uttaranchal, Dehradun, State of Uttaranchal, 2. Secretary, Food and Civil Supply State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 3. District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. ---- Respondents. Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Standing counsel for the State/respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling for the record of the case and quashing the impugned transfer order dated 10.07.2006 passed by respondent no. 1, which is annexure no. 1 to this writ petition, ii. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue working at District Udham Singh Nagar, the place where he is presently working, 2 iii. To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, iv. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 3. Vide order dated 10th July 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun, the petitioner who was working as Supply Inspector in Food and Civil Supply Department, Udham Singh Nagar, was transferred to Pithoragarh. 4. The law of transfer has been settled down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. A person holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer does not effect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer order passed in public interest of administrative exigency. It is a normal incident of service, which, of course, should not be used arbitrary or mala-fide or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer. The transfer order can be interfered with by the Courts only where it comes under the category of frequent transfer; for example, if a person has been transferred more than once within a short span of period because in that case a transfer of an employee is an abuse of power by the Govt. except in exceptional circumstances where the public interest warrants such transfers. It a transfer is made in mid session without there being any public interest, the Court can interfere. Similarly, where the transfer order has been passed mala-fide or the transfer order has been passed on the dictate of some other official, without applying mind by the Competent Authority, the Court can interfere in such cases. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has assailed the transfer order on the ground that he is going to retire after one 3 year 8months and according to the Transfer Policy issued by the Chief Secretary, State of Uttaranchal on 27th June 2006, the persons who are going to be retired within a period of two years, an option should be invited from them for maximum three places and they should be transferred in the places for which they have offered for. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents in violation of guidelines issued by the State of Uttaranchal, itself. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the guidelines does not have statutory force. It is true that the guidelines issued by the State does not have statutory force, but since the guidelines have been issued by the State to be followed it is expected from the Govt. to follow the guidelines. 8. The petitioner has already preferred representation before the Competent Authority on 12th July 2006, which is annexure no. 6 to the writ petition and it is expected from respondent no. 1 to take decision on the same within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While taking decision on the representation of the petitioners. It is expected from the respondents to allow the guidelines strictly, issued in regard to transfer of employees. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) July 19, 2006: NCM: