IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18992 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 25, 2010 SHILA DEVI & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sunny singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to order of transfer dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-1). It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already joined the place of posting. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that administrative exigency is not in favour of the transfer of the petitioners vide the impugned order. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The employer is required to look into the exigency of service and not the employee. 5. So far as the scope for interference in an order of transfer is Civil Writ Petition No.18992 of 2010 2 concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P . v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165, in relation to a similar issue, has held in the following terms:- “It is too late in the day for any Government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power of violative of any statutory provision ( an Act or Rule ) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course of routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. '' 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not shown that there has been any change in official status of the petitioners or there has been any infarction of the career prospects of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioners are serving on transferable posts. Civil Writ Petition No.18992 of 2010 3 7. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. October 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?