JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of transfer dated 25.7.2000 which has been stayed by interim order dated 17.8.2000 in this petition.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted at Primary Vidyalaya, Panchpahara Kabarai on 1.9.1998. The petitioner was suffering from Heart disease and was under the treatment of Chief Medical Officer, Mahoba and was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, where her condition became serious and still under treatment of Chief Medical Officer, Mahoba.
4. Apart from the above health grounds this petition has been filed on the ground of problem of education of her children who were studying in Class 7th and 8th at Mahoba at the time the petition was filed.
5. The children who were studying in Class 7th and 8th must have passed out to Class 10th now as more than 3 years have passed since the filing of the writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner States that only grievance remains is that the petitioner has been transferred to a place of 35 Kms. away from the city and she would have to go by roadways bus to the school and also cover a distance of 2 Kms. about on foot. It is submitted that the specialized medical treatment of heard disease is not available at the place where she has been transferred and' it would be impossible for her to get immediate medical attention in case of need.
6. In Paragraph 16 it is averred that the petitioner had filed a representation dated 25.7.2000 giving her willingness that she may be transferred to any place about 15 to 20 Kms. from her present place of posting.
7. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Medical treatment is not available everywhere.
8. The petitioner herself states that there is no problem if she is transferred to a distance of 15 to 20 Kms. from the city. Her immediate treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Institute, Lucknow, is over. She was advised 15 days rest and to follow up treatment. The petitioner has been enjoying the interim order for the last three years her services are transferable. The requirements of teachers in villages are more and it is found that normally transfer to villages is avoided by the transferred person on some or other pretext due to health, education of children, political interference and personal problem.
9. The Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Anr., has held that transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the Court. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner, which are very microscopic in number. viz (i) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shri Rameshwar Dyal and Anr., (ii) U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, and (iii) State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, it was contended that this Court has consistently been of the view that final relief could not be given at the interim stage.
10. In case the order of transfer is stayed at the interim stage it amounts to allowing the petition itself at the interim stage.
11. In an extreme and rare case where the order is passed mala fide or without following the procedure under the law then the employee can certainly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the interim relief. The High Court in such an extreme and rare case may in its wisdom stay the operation of the said order.
12. There are no ground for interfering with orders of transfer. Interim order dated 17.8.2000 is vacated. The competent authority may pass fresh orders of transfers of the petitioner. No order as to costs. The Courts should be very slow in tinkering and interfering in cases where transfer is challenged. It may not be forgotten that transfer is an exigency of service and a person who join and accepts a transferable job/service has to carry out the orders of transfer and make arrangements for personal problems. It is only in genuine and rare case that the Courts should interfere in case of transfer.
13. In the circumstances of this case it is Respondent No. 2 is directed to sympathically consider and decide the representation dated 10.7.2000 submitted by the petitioner or any other representation made by her if submitted by her within 15 days from today considering her parents State of health, for these reasons aforesaid the writ fails and is dismissed.