Transfer of government servants is an ordinary incident of service and does not violate legal rights unless made in violation of statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide.

( 1 ) HAVING served in Delhi for a period of three years, petitioner has been transferred to a Field Station in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. Aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order on the ground that the same is in violation of his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as also the policy regulating transfers and postings in the indian Air Force. The order is also challenged on the ground that the same is vitiated by malafides and bias against the petitioner.

( 2 ) WE have heard Mr. Pandey, counsel appearing for the petitioner, and perused the record. Transfer of a public servant from one place to another is made in the exigencies of service and are not interfered with by the Courts unless they are shown to be incompetent in the sense that the authority issuing the order has no jurisdiction to do so or found to be vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. This is particularly so in the case of Armed Forces, bsf, CRPF and ITBP, whose personnel are duty-bound to serve at any place to which they may be transferred. The legal position on the subject is settled by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court. Reference to some of those decisions should in our view suffice.

( 3 ) IN B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others AIR 1986 SC 1955, the Supreme Court summed up the law regarding transfer of an employee in the following words :

"it is well understood that transfer of a Government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. "the norms enunciated by Government for the guidance of its officers in the matter of regulating transfer are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfers in the exigencies of administration than vesting of any immunity from transfer in the Government servants. " (emphasis supplied)

( 4 ) IN Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1991 SCC 532, the above position was reiterated in the following passage :

"the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or 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. " (emphasis supplied)

( 5 ) AGAIN in Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas 1993 SCC 2444, the Apex Court held that the guidelines issued by the Government and the policies, if any, regarding transfer of employees from one place to the other do not create any enforceable legal right in favour of the employee to insist that he should be continued at a particular place for any particular period or time. Orders of transfer will not, therefore, be interfered with simply because the same are in violation of the policy or guidelines. The petitioner"s argument that his transfer from Delhi to Jaisalmer is in violation of the guidelines regarding postings in Air Force, therefore, needs notice only to be rejected.

( 6 ) MR. Pandey next argued that the order of transfer was