CWP No.19423 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19423 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). Only grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Kanhuwan, vide order dated 28th July, 2011 during general transfers. Merely three months thereafter, he was transferred back to Primary Health Centre Narot Jaimal Singh. Learned counsel submits that in view of instructions, Annexure P-3, petitioners could not have been transferred again without waiting for three years to elapse. According to him, instructions Annexure P-3 are mandatory in nature and thus, transfer is vitiated. Heard. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is untenable. Transfer is an exigency of service. The instructions issued by the Government are merely in the nature of guidelines and thus, same cannot bestow any right on him. This apart, distance between both the places of posting of the petitioner does not appear to be much. In judgment reported as Jit Singh Mallah vs. Punjab State Electricity CWP No.19423 of 2011 2 Board and others, (2007-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 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 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 whimsical.” Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and judgment in Jit Singh's case (supra), I find no merit in this petition and same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 17.10.2011 'rajpal'