By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders dated 11.09.2019 and 17.07.2019, contained at Annexures 1 & 2 to the petition and also to command the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties on the present place of posting.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the transfer policy, placed on record as Annexure 5 with the paper book. Learned counsel has also submitted that while passing the orders, the authority concerned has not considered the Rule 11(x) of the Transfer Policy, wherein it has been stated that if the retirement age of the employee is less than two years, he or she may be transferred to near the home district or at the place of their choice.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as per the instructions, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after considering the entirety of the matter. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out Annexure 4 i.e. the representation of the petitioner, in which it is contended that his services are left about two years and four months. It is submitted that when the petitioner has himself admitted that his services are left more than two years, then how he can claim the benefit of Rule 11(x) of the Transfer Policy. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that while passing the impugned order, each and every aspects of the matter has been considered and thereafter the impugned orders have been passed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is admitted postilion that petitioner holds transferable post and that the authority, who has passed the order of transfer, has got full competence to pass order of transfer, and there is no violation of any statutory rules and regulation. There is hardly no scope of interference with the order impugned in view of the dictum of Apex Court in the cases of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 1995 (71) FLR 1011 (SC); State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal AIR (2004) SC 2165; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another (2004) 4 SCC 245 and S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and others (2006) 9 SCC, page 583.
So far as the personal inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner, it is stated that the law on the subject, is clear that transfer policy is not at all enforceable in the Court of Law and it is for the authority concerned to decide and determine as to where an incumbent is to be posted and as to where his/her services are to be best utilized and, in case, any allegations are levelled that transfer order is in breach of transfer policy, then remedy of petitioner lies to approach the authority concerned and issue of convenience and inconvenience should also be addressed by the competent authority.
It is well settled that the transfer is a normal eventuality of service and that is not required to be interfered by the courts until it is violation of statute or is an outcome of malafides or is shocking arbitrarily. No such eventuality exists in the case in hand.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 VNP/-