CWP No.20060 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20060 of 2011 Date of decision: November 01, 2011 Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 21st October, 2011, on the ground that the said order is against the policy, Annexure P-2 and has been passed under political influence. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to implement order dated 8th April, Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order Annexure P-4 is against the policy of the State Government. According to him, petitioner had a better right to be posted at Mohali as his brother was killed in the year 1986 at the hands of the terrorists and in view of policy, petitioner needs to be posted at a safer place. In fact, order to that effect had already been passed vide Annexure P-3 but has been superseded. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.' It appears that petitioner was promoted as District CWP No.20060 of 2011 2 Homeopathy Officer on 30th March, 2010 and was posted as such at Tarn Taran. It was, however, observed in the transfer order that petitioner would take charge at Mohali after retirement of one Dr. Geeta in October, 2011. However, vide order dated 21st October, 2011, Annexure P-4, another doctor, namely Dr. B.S. Chandok (respondent No.3 herein) has been directed to be posted as District Homeopathic Officer at Mohali. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel has referred to policy of the State Government, Annexure P-2 dated 26th April, 1988 to contend that Government employees posted in sensitive and vulnerable villages/ towns be transferred to safer places of their choice. According to counsel, brother of the petitioner was killed at the hands of the terrorists in the year 1986 and thus, his posting at Tarn Taran is against the policy. Besides, the petitioner needs to be adjusted at Mohali as his wife, who is also a government servant, is posted there. It is evident that on promotion to the post of District Homeopathic Officer, the petitioner was posted at a newly created Dispensary at Tarn Taran in April, 2011. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, however, observed in the said order that petitioner would assume charge at Mohali after retirement of Dr. Geeta. By a later order, Annexure P-4, however, one Dr. B.S. Chandok was directed to be posted at Mohali. The contention that the petitioner needs to be posted at a safer place, in view of policy, CWP No.20060 of 2011 3 Annexure P-2, is without any merit. The said policy appears to have been framed by the Government in wake of the situation prevailing at the relevant time in the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the petitioner is already posted at Tarn Taran and is working there. Merely because an observation was made in transfer order, Annexure P-3 that the petitioner would assume charge as District Homeopathic Officer, Mohali, would not bestow any legal right on him. The prayer for a mandamus to be posted at a particular place, in my view, is misconceived. The State Government is perfectly within its right to order transfers from time to time according to administrative exigencies. Thus, no fault can be found with order Annexure P-4 whereby another doctor has been directed to be posted at Mohali. 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 CWP No.20060 of 2011 4 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.” 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 November 01, 2011 'rajpal'