HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 828 (S/S) of 2009 D.C. Thapliyal aged about 53 years S/o Sri Jagdish Prasad R/o Veterinary Hospital, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the respondents/State. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 05/07/2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri by which the petitioner has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Kotdwar to Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal. This impugned transfer order was communicated to the petitioner by the Chief Veterinary Officer, District Pauri Garhwal on 22/07/2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parities and perused the record. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner Km. Archana has been doing B.Ed. from Post Graduate Government Degree College, Kotdwar; the petitioner is in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Veterinary Pharmacist Hospital in the near future; and the petitioner has 2 been transferred against the transfer policy, as such, it is violative to the transfer policy. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the respondents refuted the contention. 5. It is a well-settled position of law that the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. Transfer of an employee is only an incidence of the service and it is not punishment. The grounds taken by the petitioner that his daughter is studying at Kotdwar; he is in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Veterinary Pharmacist Hospital in the near future are not the grounds to interfere with the transfer order. The transfer policy cannot be enforced in the court of law. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. 3 6. In Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC p/659, the appellants, who were lady teachers in primary schools, were transferred on their requests to places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents, who were displaced by the appellants, challenged the validity of the transfer orders before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was allowed and the transfer orders were quashed. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing as under:- “In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 7. In Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC p/357, the respondent was working at Shillong in the office of the Botanical Survey of India and hiw was was also working there in a Central Government Office. He was transferred from Shillong to Pauri, Uttaranchal. He challenged the transfer order before the Central 4 Administrative Tribunal on the medical ground and also on the ground of violation of the guidelines contained in the Government of India. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order. However, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and observed as under:- “Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC p/227) has followed the above cited judgments, i.e. Shilpi Bose and S.L. Abbas (Supra) and held that the scope of interference by the court with regard to the transfer is very limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where an official should be posted. The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made. In the case in hand, there is no violation of any mandatory statutory rule or there was no malice. 9. It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid judgments that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by 5 malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court should not interfere with it. I do not find that the transfer order is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of the statutory provisions. As such, the grounds taken by the petitioner are of no avail. The transfer order is a routine one. It cannot be held that it has been made out of vengeance or malice. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interference. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) 4th August, 2009 Shiv