CWP No.22795 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.22795 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.12.2011 Suman Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order 11th November, 2011, passed by Director, Health & Family Welfare Department, Punjab, whereby petitioner has been transferred to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala from Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no administrative or other reason mentioned in the impugned transfer order whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. According to him, in the absence of any reason, the said order is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The petitioner has been posted at Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur since number of years. Vide order dated 11th November, 2011, she was CWP No.22795 of 2011 2 transferred to Kapurthala on administrative grounds. A perusal of the order Annexure P-19, shows that Civil Surgeon Gurdaspur had reported that number of complaints were being received against the petitioner. Apart from doing a partiality with employees, she was using foul language with them. Her general behaviour was stated to be very bad. Admittedly, according to the service rules applicable to the petitioner, she is required to serve anywhere in the State of Punjab. Thus, her transfer from Gurdaspur to Kapurthala cannot be said to be violative of any rules. The order cannot be said to be punitive as it is merely a transfer order. It is well settled that transfer is not only an exigency but condition of service. 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 CWP No.22795 of 2011 3 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 8.12.2011 'rajpal'