Employees do not possess a right to remain at a specific posting, and transfer orders are subject to the employer's discretion unless proven otherwise.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

1. That the impugned transfer order dated 23.01.2019 and the consequential relieving order dated 21.12.2019 may kindly be declared arbitrary and accordingly be quashed and set aside.

2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Cost of writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.01.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Zonal Office, Jaipur Region to Zonal Office, Mumbai Region.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no administrative exigency in transfer of the petitioner, moreover the transfer order was passed on 23.01.2019 whereas the consequential relieving order was passed after a delay of eleven months on 21.12.2019. Counsel further submits that even after passing of the transfer order, the petitioner has been given additional charge of Mumbai Sub Region Jaipur and Ahmedabad, therefore there is no need to implement the transfer order dated 23.01.2019. Counsel further submits that the respondents have violated the transfer policy.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner is working at Jaipur for last about eleven years. Counsel further submits that the respondents have transferred the petitioner due to administrative exigency.

5. Counsel further submits that since by an interim order passed by this court dated 04.02.2020, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work at his present place of posting, therefore, the respondents obeying the interim order, handed over the additional charge for Mumbai City, Jaipur and Ahmedabad to the petitioner at his present place of posting itself. Counsel further submits that the employee has no right to continue at a particular place of his choice.

6. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. Reported (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 t