Important Point: No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any particular place or at a place of his choice, if the appointment is to class or category of transferable post from one place to other.

T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

(i) All the petitions are filed for challenging the General Transfers made by Zilla Parishad, Nanded of its employees. Some petitioners are from non-teaching staff and the remaining petitioners are teaching staff (both from Class III category). The case of each petitioner is being discussed separately as in some cases facts are different. The transfers are under challenge and so, the relevant rules and policy of the employer with regard to transfer of its employees need to be seen first.

(ii) In catena of cases, the Apex Court has made it clear that no Government servant or employee of public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any particular place or at a place of his choice, if the appointment is to class or category of transferable post from one place to other. It is also settled law that in such case, when the transfer is in accordance with the rules and policy of the State, the Courts or Tribunals cannot ordinarily interfere with such orders and the Courts, in such matters need to start with presumption that such transfer was in public interest and it was for efficiency in public administration. In view of this position of law, employees, who challenge the transfer orders need to show to the Court that malafides can be attributed to the order of transfer [Reliance placed on MANU/SC/0585/2004 [State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Siya Ram and Anr.].

2. In the case reported as 2010 (2) Bom.C.R. 648 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) (AURANGABAD BENCH) [Vyankatrao Ghalappa Savle Vs. Zilla Parishad and Ors.], this Court had occasion to consider the transfers of Class III and Class IV employees of Zilla Parishad. In that case, for inter district transfer, the rules given in Government Resolution (hereinafter referred to as 'G.R.' for short) dated 27.5.2000 were considered. The employees had argued in respect of their so called right to get benefit of couple convenience rule. In that matter also, this Court held that if the transfer is well within the relevant rules, it cannot be cancelled unless malafides are made out. In the case reported as MANU/MH/0093/1998 [Yogesh Pratap Singh Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Ors.], this Court, while considering the challenge to transfer on couple convenience rule, made observation at para No. 5, which are relevant for present purpose, as under :-

"Before we go to the pleadings, we must bear in mind the approach of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the scope of judicial review in matters of challenge to an order of transfer. As far as the guidelines regarding posting of husband and wife at a particular place are concerned, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Metha, MANU/SC/0095/1992 : (1992) I LLJ 329 SC. In para 5 of the judgment at page 520 of the report, the Supreme Court observed that there can be no doubt that ordinarily, and a far as practicable, the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All India Service (like case before us), the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the postings of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees."

3. In the