IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23297 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 15, 2011 Harjit Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing of transfer order-Annexure P/3 dated 9.12.2011 whereby he has been sent from BML Circle, Patiala to Drainage Circle, Gidderbaha. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that transfer has been effected in a most arbitrary manner. Before passing the order, approval of the Chief Minister was not sought which is mandatory. According to him, respondent No.4 has been adjusted at Patiala being an influential person and petitioner has been displaced. Even family circumstances of the petitioner have not been taken into consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given a careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, petitioner had been posted at Patiala since the year 2000. By way of order-Annexure P/3 certain transfers/postings were effected. Name of the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.23297 of 2011 - 2 - figured in the same. The administrative authority decided to transfer the petitioner from BML Circle, Patiala to Drainage Circle, Gidderbaha. The argument that approval of the Chief Minister was required before transferring the petitioner, who is a superintendent, is not convincing. The policy relied upon is only in the nature of guidelines. 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 Vs. 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 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.” 2 Civil Writ Petition No.23297 of 2011 - 3 - In view of facts and circumstances of the case and judgment in Jit Singh’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. December 15, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3