JUDGMENT Shishir Kumar, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order B impugned dated 17.10.2007 passed by Chief General Manager (Personnel), U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Ltd., (in short UPSRTC) Annexure 31 to the writ petition and consequential order dated 18.10.2007 I 1 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Hathras Depot, Hathras, Annexure-32 to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Corporation and all the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by UPSRTC Regulations 1981. The petitioner alleged to be President of the Union submitted that due to the malafide inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been transferred from one district to another. The petitioner alleges certain malafides against respondent No. 2 who is working as Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Hathras Depot, Hattiras. It ha further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Majority of the employees of Hathras Depot had made complaint with regard to respondent No. 2 for taking money while granting leave or while allotting bus and on all issues the Assistant Regional Manager does not give approval till money is not paid to him. An agreement was arrived at between the Union and the employees dated 11.5.2007 which includes that previous agreement dated 28.9.2006 was to be complied with and there was an agreement that vehicle has to be operated as per the age of the vehicle and the polity of head-quarter source; that per hour running of the vehicle or bus will depend upon the conditions of the bus. A notice was given by the Union to the respondent No. 2 on account of non-compliance of the agreement dated 11.5.2007. On 5.10.2007 all the employees of the Hathras Depot went on strike. Various other allegations have been made against the respondent No. 2 and other officers including respondent No. 6.
3. The petitioner submitted that due to the aforesaid fact the petitioner has been transferred by order dated 17.10.2007 in public interest from Hathras; Depot, Aligarh to Deoria Depot, Gorakhpur. It has also been contended by the petitioner that the petitioner being an office-bearer of the Union which is a registered and has been recognised, cannot be transferred till the petitioner is having the said post. Therefore, the order of transfer is based on malafides as well as against the norms of the respondents and the same is liable to be quashed. Further submission has been made that it is a mid term transfer therefore, in view of the guidelines issued by the State Government from time; to time, mid term transfers are not permitted. On 1.11.2007 learned Counsel for the respondents was granted time to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and Sri V.C. Dixit who appears on behalf of the Corporation has submitted that the services of the employees of the UPSRTC are transferable and no employee of the Corporation has any vested right or lien to be allowed to continue at one place for his whole service period. Further there is no provision in any rules or there are any instruction to this effect that the President, Secretary or any other office-bearer and member of the employees Union cannot be transferred. The Corporation has got full right to transfer its employees from one place to another on administrative ground or in the interest of the Corporation. The petitioner being a permanent resident of district Hathras and from the date of initial appointment, He is posted at Hathras, he is not taking any interest in discharging his duties rather he is interested in activities of employees Union, as such the Depot is facing problems in getting the work smoothly done and therefore, on administrative ground and in the interest of the Corporation, the petitioner has been transferred to Deoria Depot, Gorakhpur Region. Further it has been submitted that due to the instigation of the petitioner and other office-bearers there was a strike which has been banned by the Government by order dated 31.7.2007. Further submission has been made by the respondents that if the petitioner is having some personal grievance, he can approach the higher authorities for the said purpose. Transfer being an incident of service, cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutor of India.
4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner has alleged various malafides against the respondents particularly against respondent No. 2. But from the record it appears that the petitioner is involved in various Union activities and is not permitting the other employees of the Corporation to run the Corporation smoothly. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be transferred from one place to another. The petitioner is not able to show any document or Government Orders to this effect that the services of the petitioner is not transferable. The petitioner has also failed to assail before this Court that the order of transfer is in any way malafide and has been passed by an authority who is not competent to pass an order. Unless and until it is shown from the record that the order of transfer is a malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the Court should not interfere in such orders of transfer. There is no doubt that while passing the order of transfer, the authorities must keep in mind regarding the guidelines issued from time to time. But it has got no statutory force. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas has held that "who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory I provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it." In the case of B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , the Apex Court while considering the case of transfer of a Government employee has held that transfer is an incident of service. Order of transfer not resulting in alteration of any condition of service to his disadvantage need not be interfered. In Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. the Apex Court has observed that where a competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The Court should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless and until the order of transfer are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. In the case of Natthi Lal v. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. reported in 1994(2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1030 this Court white considering the various judgements of the Apex Court has held that normally it is not permissible for the High Court to interfere in the order of transfer.
5. After considering the respective arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it cannot be disputed that the transfer is an incident of service and is not to be interfered by the courts in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It can be interfered only if it is found against any statutory mandatory rules or with a malafide intention or made in colourable exercise of powers only to harass the employes concerned otherwise it is a sole discretion of the appropriate authority to transfer an employee to a particular post where it is necessary to do so. But this power has to be exercised in fair and reasonable manner and not arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid fact and considering the submissions as well as the Apex Court judgements the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the order of transfer. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. It is however open to the petitioner to submit a representation regarding his grievance to respondent No. 8 stating all the facts which have been narrated in the writ petition. If such a representation is filed, respondent No. 8 is obliged to consider the same on the basis of the relevant record and will pass a detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law, if possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with the representation. No order is passed as to costs.