1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7516/2007 Anil Kumar Sharma v/s The Raj. Civil Services Appellant Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: MAY 26, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sanjay Sharma, for the petitioner. Dr. Saugath Roy with Shri Jai Deep Sarkar, for respondent No.4. Dr. M.S. Kachhawa, Addl. Govt. counsel. BY THE COURT : The matter has come up for orders on an application filed by the respondent State to vacate the interim stay order dated 26.9.2007 but at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard and is being disposed of finally. The petitioner who was posted as Tehsildar, Girwa, was transferred as Sub- Registrar, Kota, vide impugned order dated 30.7.2007 (Annex. 2) which was challenged by him before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 6.9.2006 (correct date appears to be 6.9.2007) as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition. 2 It is relevant to mention that order dated 30.7.2007 merged in the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by the Tribunal but neither a copy of the order of Tribunal has been placed on record nor it has been challenged by way of this writ petition. In these circumstances, after merger of the order dated 30.7.2007 in the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the order dated 30.7.2007 without challenging the order of Tribunal. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Apart from above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others – AIR 1991 SC 532 held that a government servant holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Para 4 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation 3 of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” In Union of India & Another Vs. N.P. Thomas – AIR 1993 SC 1605, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that an employee has no vested right to remain in one particular circle itself and cannot claim as a matter of right the posting in that circle. Para 8 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. In the present case, it cannot be said that the transfer order of the respondent transferring him out of Kerala Circle is violative of any statutory rule or that the transfer order suffers on the ground of mala- fide. The submissions of the respondent that some of his juniors are retained by Kerala Circle and that his transfer is against the policy of the Government posting the husband and wife in the same station as far as possible cannot be countenanced since the respondent holding a transferable post has no 4 vested right to remain in the Kerala Circle itself and cannot claim, as a matter of right, the posting in that Circle even on promotion.” In Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas – (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an order of transfer is an incident of government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Ordinarily the guidelines issued by the government should be kept in mind while transferring the government employee but the guidelines does not confer any right upon the government employee to legally enforce it. Executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. The Apex Court observed as under:- (Head Note 'C') “An order of transfer is an incident of government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala-fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, the husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The same guideline however 5 does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. Executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others - AIR 1995 SC 1056 observed that it is for the administration to take appropriate decision in the matter of transfer and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration. The relevant part of Para 4 is as under:- “4. .... The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation.....” In view of above discussions, it is clear that petitioner was holding a transferable post. He has no vested right to remain at one particular place. I do not find any violation of any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. There is no violation of any statutory rule or malafide 6 action on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of above, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/