1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3393/2011. ( Shri Shalindra Pundlik Dhanvijay ..V/s.. The Union of India, through its Secretary and others ) ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Vishal Anand, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mishra, A.S.G.I. or respondent no.1. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. Reserved on : 17.08.2011. Pronounced on : 23.08.2011. (Per : M.N. Gilani, J.) 1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Application No.502/2011 and consequently challenges the order dated 24th of September 2010 passed by the respondent nos.2 transferring him from Nagpur to Shillong on the administrative ground. 2. The petitioner entered the service as Junior Geologist on 15th of may 2000 and was posted at Jaipur. In September 2003, on transfer, he joined his duties at Nagpur 2 and since then he is at Nagpur. Vide order dated 24th of September 2010, issued by the respondent no.2, he has been directed to join at Shillong as Senior Geologist. He submitted representation highlighting his difficulties and inconvenience, which he is likely to suffer, if the impugned order is given effect to. At Annexure-D the petitioner submitted the details of court cases pending between him and his wife. According to him if he joins at Shillong which is more than 2000 kilometers away from Nagpur, it would be highly impossible for him to attend those cases. The second ground of challenge is the violation of transfer policy, which is in vogue, in the form of circular dated 14/6/2010 (Annexure E), issued by Ministry of Mines Geological Survey of India. The petitioner is relying upon the criteria fixed by this circular mainly at serial no.1 and 2 which read as under :- “1. Officers who have stayed for more than 10 years at one station are short listed for preparation of the prospective transfer list. 2. Officers who are included in the prospective transfer list and have stayed more than 15 years at one station are considered for transfers.” 3. Learned Member (J) of the Central Administrative Tribunal turned down the prayer of the petitioner to cancel his 3 transfer from Nagpur to Shillong after observing that the view taken by the Director on the representations submitted by the petitioner is plausible and cannot be substituted with any other view. We are also not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Member (J) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, particularly, in view of the settled law on the issue. In the case of Rajendra Singh and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 15 S.C.C. 178 the Supreme Court held that “a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires.” In the recent decision in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Kashmir Singh and another reported in (2010) 13 S.C.C. 306 it is observed that “transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant 4 to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal.” 4. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, however, having regard to the guidelines governing the transfer policy and the pendency of the litigation against the petitioner, purely on the humanitarian ground and considering the great hardship which may entail to the petitioner in attending the cases pending at Nagpur we dispose of the petition with directions to the respondent no.2 and 3 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of transfer, or at least for change of the posting to minimize the hardship likely to be suffered by the petitioner. In the above terms, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.