CWP No. 16623 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16623 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2010 Ravi Dutt .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Earlier petition filed through another counsel in challenge to order of transfer was withdrawn (CWP No. 13747 of 2009, dismissed as withdrawn on 01.07.2010 entitled Ravi Dutt Vs. State of Punjab and others). 2. This is a second petition. 3. The following has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in regard to right of an employee to challenge order of transfer in State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165:- "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 CWP No. 16623 of 2010 2 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 tobe an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power of violative of any statutory provision (an Act of 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 oppoartunity 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 carrer 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." 4. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter of transfer is made out, in the facts and circumstances of this CWP No. 16623 of 2010 3 case. 5. Petition dismissed. 16.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?