The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer is an incident of service, and a public servant has no vested right to seek transfer to a location of his choice. The courts should not interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless there is a violation of any mandatory statutory rule or malafide.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sriganganagar to Jodhpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order has been passed with the purpose to adjust the private respondent who has been transferred in his place from Jodhpur to Sriganganagar. She further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the transfer of the private respondent has been made at her request as no TA/DA has been shown to be made payable to her. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned does not specify that the same has been passed in any administrative exigency and therefore also, the same is bad in eyes of law.

3. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2003(1) WLN 63.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order impugned pertains to the transfer of 291 employees and therefore, no malafides can be imputed for transfer of the present petitioner. He submitted that the private respondent belongs to Sriganganagar and was posted at Jodhpur since 2015. Therefore, now after a period of seven years, at her request she had been transferred to her home district i.e. Sriganganagar. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he belongs to Sriganganagar and had been serving at Sriganganagar since 2015 or even prior to that. Learned counsel also submitted that in the year 2018, the petitioner was also transferred within Sriganganagar at his own request. Therefore, in the public interest the State is duty bound to consider the request of all the employees and decide on the basis of the priorities and the tenure completed by a particular employee at one place of posting.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear on record that the petitioner has been posted within Sriganganagar district since the year 2015. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, he had also been transferred at his own request in the year 2018. Therefore, an employee cannot, as a matter of right, claim that he has to be posted in a particular district and that too, his home district for the complete tenure of his services. In Ajay Kumar Sharma's case (supra), the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner too, it has been concluded by the Court as under:

"19. Thus, on transfer, it can be concluded:

(1) That transfer is an incident of service and it does not require the consent of the employee.

(2) That a public servant has no vested right to seek transfer to a location of his choice.

(3) That transfer can be made on administrative exigencies and in public interest.

(4) That transfer can be made for good and efficient administration.

(5) That continued posting at one station is not conducive to good administration."

7. The Court specifically held that the continued posting at one place is not conducive to good administration. The said clause is clearly applicable in the present matter as the petitioner is posted at his home district since 2015. Moreover, transfer is an implied condition of service and the power is always vested in the State Department to transfer an employee in administrative exigency. So far as the power to interfere in transfer Orders is concerned, the law on the point is no more res integra.

8. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5418 of 1990, decided on 19.11.1990) reported in (1991) IILLJ 591 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are 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 malafide. A Government servant