IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 25211 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- A.K. RAVEENDRAN, SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVAMPADI, CALICUT DISTRICT, (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER) BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.P.KALPAKAVALLY,UDC, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KUNNAMANGALAM. (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 order of transfer issued by the first respondent transferring him from Thiruvampady village office to Kunnamangalam Village Office. The petitioner submits that he was promoted and posted as Special Village Officer in Thiruvampady village by order passed on 21.12.2007 and that within a period of eight months, in violation of the guidelines governing transfer issued as per G.O (P) No.15/89/P&ARD dated 22.5.1989, he has been transferred to Kunnamangalam village office. Exhibit P1 order of transfer recites that the petitioner has been transferred on disciplinary grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no complaint against the petitioner and no disciplinary action is pending against him and therefore the transfer is bad on that ground also. The Apex Court has in State of U.P and W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 2 others Vs. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402] held as follows: “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 or 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 or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines or 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 W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 3 violation of any statutory provision.” 2. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot challenge Exhibit P1 on the ground that it is not in tune with the guidelines regulating transfer of Government employees. The Apex Court has in the aforesaid decision held that the guidelines do not confer any enforceable right on the transferred employee and that order of transfer can be interfered with only if it is vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of any statutory rule or is passed by an incompetent authority. Apart from merely alleging that he has been transferred out due to political pressure exerted by the third respondent, the petitioner has not made out a case that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is rested on extraneous consideration. The petitioner has also no case that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority. Further, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was transferred out in view of serious allegations of misconduct leveled against him including complains from the public that were inquired W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 4 into by the Vigilance Wing of the Revenue Department. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Exhibit-P1. The writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.25211 of 2008 6