Transfer orders are necessary in public interest and administrative exigencies, and unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions, they are not open to interference. Guidelines/administrative instructions do not create enforceable rights, and breach of transfer policy does not create vested or enforceable rights.

1. The petitioner in the present writ petition questions his order of transfer from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Pulwama to the office of Director, TB. Demonstration Centre, Srinagar.

2. The order is questioned on two grounds.

Firstly, that the transfer order is premature as it has been passed only after a period of one year from the date of his earlier order of transfer and is, thus, in violation of Govt. Policy circulated by the Govt. vide order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 28-7-2010 [Refer 2011 (13) JKS JK-48: JKS Soft JKS/6896] which envisages that premature transfers shall be ordered only with the prior approval of the Minister Incharge for the reasons to be recorded.

3. The other ground on which the order of transfer has been challenged is that the same suffered from the vice of malafides. Reference in this regard was made by learned counsel to the order impugned itself, a portion whereof is reproduced here-in-below:

"Whereas it has also been verified by enquiry team that Mr. Gh. Nabi Shah, Head Assistant, who is working in District Hospital Pulwama on attachment basis is not bearing attitude like a subordinate to his officers and is always behaving like unbecoming of Govt. employee and is running a parallel office against his superiors which is against service conduct rules."

4. The learned counsel urged that the order of transfer clearly appears to be an order, which is punitive in character passed without holding any enquiry or affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is no longer res-integra. It is settled law that a transfer order, unless shown to be a mala fide exercise of power, in violation of a statutory provision or passed by an incompetent atithority, is not open to interference by the court.

7. In State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 SCC 405, the Apex Court has held as under-

"...................No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574."

8. In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Apex Court while dealing with the guidelines framed by the Government of India regarding couple transfers held that the guidelines/administrative instructions do not create any enforceable right in the employees. The said guidelines are in the nature of instructions and do not have any statutory force.

9. In Rajendra Singh & ors v. State of U.P. & Ors, (2009) 15 SCC 178, the Apex Court, yet again, reiterated the aforementioned principles and in paragraph 9 of the judgment, held as under-

"9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, this court held:

"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory