IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18035 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 05, 2010 SINDER PAL SINGLA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner has been transferred to Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one Shri Bir Bajrangi Lal has been asked to serve in the place of the petitioner in Barnala District and he would also handle the charge of Sangrur, while the petitioner has been uprooted and has been posted in Ludhiana. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is scheduled to retire in May, 2012 i.e. in about 18 months time. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No.18035 of 2010 2 petitioner. 5. It is for the employer to see the administrative exigency to post or transfer a person from a particular place. Personal mala fide has not been alleged. The petition further does not disclose that the career prospects of the petitioner have been adversely affected. It is admitted case that the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P . v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165, in relation to a similar issue, has held in the following terms:- “It is too late in the day for any Government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power of violative of any statutory provision ( an Act or Rule ) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course of routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable Civil Writ Petition No.18035 of 2010 3 rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. '' 7. In view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gobardhan Lal's case (supra), and the fact that there is no infarction in career prospects of the petitioner, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. October 05, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?