Transfer orders made on administrative grounds should not be interfered with unless there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fides.

J. M. MALIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the erstwhile Overseas Communication Services, govt. of India in October, 1971. He became manager (Hindi) in the year 1993. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent requesting that he is due to retire on superannuation on 31. 7. 2009. He was left with two and a half years of service. As per the policy, "an employee, as far as possible, may be posted at a station of his choice during last three years of his service". He also prayed that he should not be transferred till his retirement. However, on 3. 11. 2006, the petitioner was transferred to Coimbatore. This was his fourth transfer. Under these circumstances, the present writ was filed with the prayer that transfer order dated 3. 11. 2006 be quashed.

( 2 ) THE respondent has contested the present writ petition on the point of its admission. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the transfer policy, clause 7 (k), which is reproduced as follows:-"an employee will not be disturbed with a transfer during the last 3 years of his service and to the extent possible shall be posted at station of his choice". It was pointed out that the said policy has not yet been withdrawn or deleted.

( 3 ) HE also pointed out that petitioner is a Manager (Hindi), there is no work for Manager (Hindi) in Delhi and there is every possibility that there is no work for Manager (Hindi) in Coimbatore where the petitioner stands transferred.

( 4 ) LASTLY, the petitioner has been directed to report before Mr. Rajesh Rajan who is his junior. However, this ground finds no place in the petition.

( 5 ) FOR the following reason, I see no merit in his argument. This question was considered by this Court in a case reported in R. S. Yadav vs. V. S. N. L. and another 105 (2003) Delhi Law Times 95. "4]. I have considered the rival submissions of the Counsel appearing for the parties. There cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner has a transfer liability. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the aforesaid order of transfer was issued he had less than three years of service left before superannuation and, therefore, even according to the own policy of the respondent he should not have been transferred out. "

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. H. N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445 had occasion to consider a similar point and the supreme Court in that regard observed as under:-"after hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties we do not find any valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Government. The respondent being a Central government employee held a transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to the other in the country; he has no legal right to insist for his posting at Calcutta or at any other place of his choice. We do not approve of the cavalier manner in which the impugned orders have been issued without considering the correct legal position. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala fides. There was no good ground for interfering with the respondent's transfer".

( 7 ) IT is a settled position of law that a transfer order, which is passed by the respondent in the administrative exigencies of service should be interfered with by the Court only when it is found by the Court that the same is issued in violation of the statutory rules or the order is passed mala fide. No mala fide is alleged in the present writ petition. Therefore, the only aspect to be scrutinised h