IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8308 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 23, 2010 GURMEET SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Junior Assistant, District Transport Officer, Ludhiana, to the Head Office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioner remained posted at Ludhiana for considerable length of time, as depicted in the reply (para-3 of the preliminary submissions). It has also been pointed out that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered on Civil Writ Petition No.8308 of 2010 2 administrative grounds and in public interest. The petitioner was serving on a post that involved public dealing viz. registration of new vehicles. A number of complaints were received against the petitioner in regard to his conduct, work style and interaction with others. In such circumstances, it was thought administratively appropriate to post the petitioner at a place where public dealing is not involved and, therefore, the action was taken under the impugned orders. 3. I have considered the contents of the written statement in the context of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P . v. Gobardhan Lal , AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “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 Civil Writ Petition No.8308 of 2010 3 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. '' 4. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, as has been brought out from the written statement, I am of the considered opinion that the fact that the petitioner would be retiring in June, 2012, would not be a sufficient reason to allow him to stay at the same place of posting. This is also so because of the length of time the petitioner has already served at Ludhiana, as noticed above. 5. Other than the above, the petition does not reflect infraction of any career prospect of the petitioner, on account of his transfer. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as noticed above from the extracted portion, I find no ground to interfere in the administrative action taken by the respondents. 6. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 23, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?