IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18230 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 07, 2010 Darshan Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Heena Talwar, Advocate, for Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) vide which the petitioner has been transferred. CWP No.18230 of 2010 [2] 2. Learned counsel contends that the transfer has been ordered in view of the fact that the petitioner was found absent when a surprising check was conducted. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had slipped and therefore, sustained injury. The Head Mistress granted leave to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 4. Perusal of Order Annexure P-2 indicates that the petitioner approached the Head Mistress by way of saying that she had slipped and therefore, two hours leave be granted on 1.7.2010. 1/3rd leave was granted by the Head Mistress. It however transpires that the petitioner was found absent on 1.7.2010. It seems that when the petitioner was found absent from duty, the petitioner approached the Head Mistress for leave. 4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. Transfer is an exigency of service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2165 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 po- sition as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is CWP No.18230 of 2010 [3] 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 guide- lines for regulating transfers or containing transfer poli- cies 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 in- fraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiter- ated 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 fi- des or is made in violation of any statutory provision. '' 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any infraction in service career prospect of the petitioner. The writ Court cannot take evidence to hold that the absence of the petitioner on the day when sudden raid was conducted, the petitioner had sustained injury and therefore her absence was justified. Under the circumstances, no ground for judicial review in writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 07, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?