The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative guidelines do not confer enforceable legal rights, and transfer is an incidence of service and is not to be interfered with by the court unless it involves a stigma or constitutes a punishment.

J. Chelameswar, J.

1. The unsuccessful Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 20425 of 2010 preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the said writ petition by judgment dated 01.07.2010.

2. The Appellant was posted in the Directorate of Treasuries as a Junior Superintendent at Thiruvanantha puram by an order dated 13.04.2010. Shortly thereafter, i.e. on 26.06.2010, by another order Ext.P4, he was transferred from Thiruvanantha puram to Kottayam. Therefore, the Appellant approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition challenging Ext.P4 transfer order. The writ petition was filed essentially on the ground that the Appellant, who is due to retire on 31.03.2011, is sought to be transferred contrary to certain executive instructions issued by the State in GO(P) No. 12/04/P&ARD dated 10.09.2004 read with GO(P) No. 13/2000/P&ARD dated 27.04.2000. The relevant Clauses relied on by the Appellant in his writ petition are as follows:

Clause 3 No employee who has completed 3 years of service in a particular station need necessarily be transferred unless there is a claimant who has worked three years in an outside station to be provided there; or unless a transfer of the existing incumbent has become necessary in public interest.' Clause 13 Employees who have only two years to retire maybe posted to vacancies in Stations of their choice, giving preference to those who are due to retire earlier.

3. When the writ petition was taken up by the learned Judge, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted before the learned Judge that the Appellant/writ Petitioner had to be transferred by Ext.P4 order in view of his unsatisfactory performance in discharging his duties. Taking note of the said submission, the learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment under appeal and hence the appeal.

4. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the allegation of unsatisfactory performance of his duties made against the Appellant tantamount to attaching a stigma to the order of transfer and therefore such an order which can be passed without complying with the requirements of the principle of natural justice is required to be held illegal.

5. We may point out that the original plea in the writ petition was one of non-compliance of the guidelines issued by the State. In the writ appeal that plea is not raised and a new ground is sought on the basis of the stand taken by the State in the writ petition.

6. Administrative guidelines such as one relied upon by the Appellant do not confer any enforceable legal right, more particularly, in the context of the employment under the State is too well settled in law in this country which need not have elaboration.

7. However, the new ground that sought to be urged is very vehemently insisting upon inviting the attention of this Court. According to us, even this ground is to be rejected in view of the Apex Court decision in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath and Another, The Supreme Court repeatedly held that the transfer is incidence of service which is not to be interfered by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Transfers are normally made by the State in the exigencies of service taking various factors into account such as the efficiency of the administration, the desirability of continuing a particular individual at a particular station for a long period etc. If the service of an employee of the State is found to be not satisfactory at a particular station, for whatever good or bad reasons, it is open to the employer/State to take such remedial measures as are permissible under law to meet the requirements of the situation including initiation of disciplinary action. But the employer need not resort to such an action in every case; but opine that mere suffering of the employee would suffice the interests of the administration. Such transfer need not nece