An employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice, and the court's interference with transfer orders is limited to cases of violation of statutory provisions or mala fides.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 12.10.2022 by which the petitioner who is working on the post of A.En. has been transferred from Jhalawar to Ajmer in the interest of corporation.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that wife of the petitioner is also working at Kota. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been transferred within one year. Counsel further submits that by the impugned transfer the family of the petitioner will be disturbed.

3. Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. v. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:-

"3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view.

4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval".

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, has held as under:-

"8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; SCC P.406 para 7).

9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule 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