Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant appeal has been filed under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.11.1997 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3753/1997 by which the prayer of the appellant against the transfer order dated 23.9.97 has been rejected.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case reveal that the appellant, who is an Ayurvedic Doctor and serving with the respondents, had been posted in Sri Ganganagar, where her husband is also posted as Psychic Consultant in Govt. General Hospital. She has been transferred from Sri Ganganagar to Jodhpur vide order dated 23rd Sept., 1997 contained in Annex. 1. Being aggrieved and dissa- tisfied, the appellant challenged the said transfer order in the said writ petition on various grounds inter alia that her transfer was in contravention of the Govt. policy, which provided for posting of both the spouses together. Transfer to a distance of five hundred kms. from Sri Ganga Nagar would cause her great hardship and it would affect the education of her children, who are studying in Class X and VIII at Sri Ganganagar. Moreover, allegations of malafide were also alleged. However, the said writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment and order dt. 10.11.97. Hence this appeal.

(3). The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upto the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time, a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. [Vide Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1); Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar (2); U.O.I. vs. N.P. Thomas (3); Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, (4); State of U.P. vs. Dr. R.N. Prasad (5); Union of India & Ors. vs. Ganesh Dan Singh (6); N.K. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (7) and Abani Kante Ray vs. State of Orissa (8)].

(4). An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Atma Ram Sugomal Poshani (9), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :

``Transfer of a Govt. servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Govt. servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.

(5). Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (supra).

(6). In Union of India vs. H.N. Kirtania (10), the Honble Apex Court observed as under :

``Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide.

(7). The issue of `modus animus was considered in Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (11) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

``It has been held time and again by this court that the High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegation of malafides, if necessary particulars of the charge making out a

prima facie case are not given in the writ petition. Keeping in view the well established rule that the burden of establishing malafide lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and considering all the allegations made by the appellant in regard thereto, we do not think that they cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document