CWP No.21714 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.21714 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Opinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sushil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has impugned order, Annexure P-4, whereby he has been transferred from Primary Health Centre, Hoshiarpur to the office of Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been transferred only due to malafide reasons as respondent No.5 is biased against him. He submits that the petitioner has been singled out for transfer from outside district. He submits that from perusal of order, Annexure P-4, it is clear that other similarly placed employees have been transferred within the district sent from District Hoshiarpur to District Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of order Annexure P-4 shows that the petitioner, who is a driver, has been working in District Hoshiarpur since 1994. CWP No.21714 of 2011 2 Vide impugned order, Director Health and Family Welfare, Punjab has transferred him from District Hoshiarpur to the office of Civil Surgeon at Jalandhar. Admittedly, petitioner is not serving in the district cadre. He is liable to be transferred all over the State. Needless to say that transfer is not only an exigency of service but an incidence of service. As regards the allegations of malafide, same is not convincing. Admittedly, distance between Hoshiarpur and Jalandhar is not much. 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 CWP No.21714 of 2011 3 passed by the respondents is purely administrative in nature and, therefore, cannot be termed as either arbitrary or 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. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to pursue with his representation with the concerned authority. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 23.11.2011 'rajpal'