IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23252 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 14, 2011 Surinder Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S. Siao, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioner has impugned order-Annexure P/1 whereby he has been transferred from Chandigarh to Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order has not been passed by the competent officer. It neither spells out any administrative ground nor contains any reasons for transfer. According to learned counsel, petitioner is the senior-most official and has been working in the department since the year 1970. He could not have been transferred in an arbitrary manner to Amritsar. This apart, there is no complaint against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of order-Annexure P/1 shows that same has been passed by Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Irrigation. Admittedly, petitioner had been working in Chandigarh for number of years. Needless to observe that transfer can be effected even if there is no complaint against an employee. The transfer order need not necessarily be Civil Writ Petition No.23252 of 2011 - 2 - a speaking order in nature giving detailed reasons for issuance of same. Transfer is not only an exigency but an incidence of service. Observations of this court in judgment reported as Jit Singh Mallah vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, The Punjab Law Reporter (2007-1) 579, read thus:- “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 Vs. 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.” In view of facts and circumstances of case and judgment in Jit Singh’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.23252 of 2011 - 3 - December 14, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3