C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 15.12.2011 Kulwinder Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. C.M. No. 17136 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-4. Application is allowed and Annexure P-4 is taken on record. C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 The present petition has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 5.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioner has been transferred from Central Store, Verka, Amritsar to Senior XEN Enforcement, Batala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been transferred thrice within a period of 35 days and the transfer is not in public interest. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been transferred with mala fide intention because of the reason that so many FIRs were registered at his instance. C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) (2) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned transfer order. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been transferred thrice is not correct as initially the petitioner was transferred from Amritsar to Tarn Taran and subsequently from Tarn Taran to Amritsar itself. The second transfer is to that very place from where the petitioner was transferred. Subsequently, the petitioner has been transferred from Central Store, Verka, Amritsar to Senior XEN Enforcement, Batala. The details of the transfer has been mentioned in the petition, which clearly shows that the petitioner has remained at Amritsar for a very long period and he cannot take this plea that the transfer has been done with malafide intention. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer is at the instance of influential persons because of registration of so many FIRs, does not carry any weight. It is not a case that only the petitioner has been transferred in both the list of transfers, so many employees have been transferred and no reason is necessary to be given at the time of transfer. The transfer is an incident of service and unless the transfer is done with malafide intention, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. This view has been supported by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989) 2 SCC 602, wherein it has been observed as under:- “4. Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) (3) interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation or the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules.” Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar SCC p.661 has held as under:- “In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation 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 C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) (4) issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest.” A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist upon that he must be posted at one place or the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the Government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. This view has been supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SCT 368. It is clear from the facts as well as law position as explained above that the order of transfer is an incident of service. The Courts hardly interfere with the transfer and the same is interfered only when the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or made in violation of any statutory provisions. Although while ordering transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if an employee makes any representation with respect to his/her transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same with regard to exigencies of administration. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the present transfer is the result of any mala fide or contrary to the policy. Accordingly, there is not merit in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 15, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 22863 of 2011 (O&M) (5)