IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19688 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: October 19, 2011 Parkash Kaur …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 whereby transfer/posting order dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P-2) has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was working as ANM was promoted as Multi Purpose Health Worker Supervisor (Female) on 20.8.2009 and posted at Baba Bakala. Two years thereafter she was transferred to CHC, Verka vide order dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P-2). However, merely 3½ months thereafter said order was cancelled vide impugned order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) without assigning any reason. According to him, the order being non speaking and arbitrary deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.19688 of 2011 - 2 - The petitioner was working as Multi Purpose Health Worker Supervisor (Female) at Baba Bakala. Vide order dated 30.6.2011 she was transferred to CHC, Verka. However, said transfer order was cancelled on 13.10.2011. The plea of the petitioner that the said order deserves to be quashed as it is non speaking in nature, is without any merit. Transfer is an exigency of service. The guidelines framed by the government do not bestow any legal right upon the petitioner. 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 2 Civil Writ Petition No.19688 of 2011 - 3 - 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.” The distance between Baba Bakala and Verka does not appear to be much. Both CHCs are in the same district. I thus, find no ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. October 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3