IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18051 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 05, 2010 NAVKIRAN KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jhanji, 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 proposal of shifting surplus posts of Teachers dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure P-12) and order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-14) i.e. the acceptance of the proposal. 2. It transpires that in pursuance of policy of rationalization issued by the Education Department (Schools), Government of Punjab, inputs were called for from various places so as to rationalize the transfers and postings in the schools. Civil Writ Petition No.18051 of 2010 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conditions imposed have not been satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to file objections, as the petitioner was on ex-India leave. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. It has further been stated that the petitioner had been serving at the same place since 2004 and, therefore, has already stayed at one place for 6 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on a query of the court, further admits that there has been no infraction of career prospects of the petitioner by virtue of transfer ordered by the respondents. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P . v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165, has considered the issue and right of an employee to challenge the order of transfer. It has been 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 Civil Writ Petition No.18051 of 2010 3 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 rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. '' 8. A large number of employees are serving in the Education Department, Punjab. The department gets inputs from various places and considering all the inputs, in the context of planning of the department, transfer orders have been issued. The employer is the best person to judge administrative exigency for transfer of a post or transfer of a person from one place to another. The Court in judicial review would not, ordinarily, interfere with executive action taken by the respondents. The petitioner has not shown to the Court that there has been any infraction of her career prospects. Violation of any statutory provision has also not been indicated. The petitioner does not have a legally enforceable right to Civil Writ Petition No.18051 of 2010 4 continue to serve at one place or not to be transferred. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as extracted above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 10. The petition is, accordingly, 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?