IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.17664 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 ARUNA KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DS Adlakha, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). 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 orders dated 21.6.2010 and 31.8.2010, Annexures P-3 and P-7, respectively. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allocate the place of posting to the petitioner at ESI Dispensary No.2, Mohali, on permanent basis. 2. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-3) indicates that transfers of the employees effected were cancelled by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. It seems that subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP 13600 of 2010 for quashing Civil Writ Petition No.17664 of 2010 2 order dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure P-3). The petition was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to move a representation before the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. The petitioner moved an application dated 9.8.2010, which has been disposed of in the following effective terms:- “In accordance with the above said Order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Smt. Aruna Kumari, Pharmacist had presented an application dated 09.08.2010 in this office regarding her adjustment at E.S.I. Dispensary No.2, Mohali and the same after considering, is consigned to record room as the vacant post of Pharmacist at E.S.I. Dispensary No.2, Mohali has been filled up in general transfers. Apart this,while considering the circumstances of Smt. Aruna Kumari, Pharmacist, she has already been adjusted on her request on temporary duty at Civil Dispensary,Sector 39, Chandigarh vide this Office Order No.E-5(1) Pun: 09/2009 Dated 10.09.2009.” 3. I find that two grounds have been assigned for rejecting the request of the petitioner viz. (i) that vacant post of Pharmacist at E.S.I. Dispensary No.2, Mohali, had been filled up during general transfers; and (ii) the petitioner has already been adjusted on her request on temporary basis at Civil Dispensary, Sector 39, Chandigarh. 4. It has not been disputed 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. v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2005 Civil Writ Petition No.17664 of 2010 3 Supreme Court 2165, has observed 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. '' Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show Civil Writ Petition No.17664 of 2010 4 to this Court that official status of the petitioner has been adversely affected or there has been infarction of any career prospect of the petitioner. 5. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. September 29, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?