Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Initially for redressal of his grievances the petitioner who is working on the post of Headmaster approached this Court by filing writ petition no.699 (SS) of 2011, the same was disposed of by order dated 10.2.2011 with the following observation, the relevant portion reads as under:-
"In view of the above, with the consent of parties' counsel, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the representation of the petitioner dated 23.3.2010, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.2, to the writ petition, shall be considered and decided by the opposite party no.2, in accordance with law, rules and regulations and the Government Orders, keeping in mind the transfer policy dated 15.5.2008, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."
In pursuance to the same, the opposite party no.3 disposed of the petitioner's representation by means of the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure No.1) hence present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the Government Order dated 15.2.2008, hence the same is illegal.
It does not dispute by the learned counsel for petitioner that he is holding transferable post.
The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with its administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unelss it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide as such in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 order 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."
The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India another Vs. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 and N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding therein if a person holding a transferable post, is transferred, there is no violation of any statutory/ mandatory rules then the same is not subject to judicial review.
Further, in the case of Chief General Manager, (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another Vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"It is needless to emphasise that a government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala, therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the respondent's transfer to Dimpur."
In view of the above said facts, relief as claimed by petitioner in present writ petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.11.2011 Mahesh