The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer of government employees should be made in public interest and administrative exigencies, and can only be interfered with if actuated with malafide, based on extraneous consideration, or in lieu of punishment.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the transfer order, dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from Tube Well Division, Gagret to EE (Store Purchase) IPH HQ, Shimla-5.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working at Tube Well Division, Gagret for the last more than 3 1/2 years and was, thus, could have been transferred. However, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer is not on account of any administrative exigency, but is a colourable exercise of power to accommodate respondents No.5 and 6. It is further urged that the petitioner is due to retire in December 2020 and could not have been transferred. Lastly, it is urged that the wife of the petitioner is having arthritis problem, which would make it extremely difficult for him to join at Shimla.

3. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is State government employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other within the District in case it is a District cadre post and throughout the State in case he holds a State cadre post. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide. The courts and tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to "proper place". It is for the administration to take appropriate decision.

4. Even the administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redressal but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/ servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. Even if the order of transfer is made in transgression of administrative guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as it does not confer any legally enforceable rights unless the same is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees.

5. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, such as on the basis of complaints. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative action should be just and fair. An order of transfer is to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution otherwise the same will be treated as arbitrary.

6. Judicial review of the order of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant consideration. Even when the order of transfer which