Point of Law: An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“i) That the office order dated 20.03.2023 at Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from GSSS, Saddun Bargran, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra, H.P. to GSSS, Balugaloa, District Kangra, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to work at the present station of posting in GSSS Saddun Bargran, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra, H.P.”

3. The petitioner is working as Lecturer (Biology) in the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from GSSS Saddun Bargran, (Kangra) to GSSS Balugaloa in Kangra District vide impugned transfer order dated 20.03.2023, Annexure P-1.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been ordered to be transferred from GSSS Saddun Bargran, (Kangra) to GSSS Balugaloa (Kangra) without allowing her to complete her normal tenure of posting. She was posted at GSSS Saddun Bargran on 16.06.2020 and has yet to complete her three years’ tenure at such place. It is further alleged that the transfer of petitioner has been effected on the basis of a D.O. Note issued by the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, Himachal Pradesh. It is further submitted that the husband of petitioner is serving at Jalandhar and she has a four year old son to be looked after. On such ground, it is submitted that petitioner will suffer undue hardship, in case the impugned transfer order is implemented.

5. Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned Deputy Advocate General appeared for respondents No. 1 and 2 has opposed the claim of the petitioner on the grounds firstly that the petitioner has already completed about 2 years and 9 months of stay at the present place of posting and secondly, she has been transferred to a station, which is not far away from the present place of posting. In fact, the distance between the two stations is about 32 kilometers.

6. In S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022, decided on 10th March, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“24. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind.

25. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

26. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.”

7. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2008)1 SCC 180, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

“7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148; (AIR 1939 SC 1236), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574; (AIR 2001 SC 3309), State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508; (AIR 2001 SC 1748). Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is