CWP No.18886 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18886 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 5th June, 2010, vide which her transfer order dated 2nd June, 2010 was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner made representation for her transfer which was sympathetically considered and she was transferred to Government High School (Park), Muktsar on 2nd June, 2010. She reported for duty at the said school on 4th June, 2010 but was not allowed to join. On 7th June, 2010, she suddenly came to know that her transfer had been cancelled and she had been posted to Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Lakhewali. According to him, this entire exercise is malafide in nature. The order, thus, deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. CWP No.18886 of 2010 2 It is evident that petitioner was transferred vide order dated 2nd June, 2010 to Government High School (Park), Muktsar. The transfer was, however, cancelled vide order dated 5th June, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any fundamental constitutional right. It is well settled that transfer is not only an exigency but condition of service. In the judgment reported as Jit Singh Mallah vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, The Punjab Law Reporter (2007-1) 579, this court observed as follows:- “3. We are unable to accept any of the submissions made by the learned counsel. Firstly, the petitioner being a Government servant has no inherent right to choose the place of his posting. Secondly, the instructions relied upon by the petitioner are mere guidelines. The said guidelines cannot be said to be mandatory and do not, therefore, create any legal right in favour of the petitioner. This question has been specifically considered by the B. Varadha Rao V. State of Karnataka and others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1955 wherein it has been clearly held that the guidelines such as Annexure P-11 do not confer any legal right on an employee. The transfer of an employee is not only an incident of service but a condition of service as well. It is the prerogative of the authorities concerned and this Court is not to normally interfere except when it is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of a statutory provision or has been passed by an incompetent authority. None of the said factors has been shown or even pleaded in the present case. We are also of the opinion that the order passed by the respondents is purely administrative in nature and, therefore, cannot be termed as either arbitrary or CWP No.18886 of 2010 3 whimsical.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment in Jit Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered view that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court is made out. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 12.12.2011 'rajpal'