The transfer of an employee is an inherent condition of service and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.

1. These two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner. In the first one, the petitioner has challenged Government order No. 26-Edu of 2016 dated 02.02.2016 whereby the Government in the School Education Department, on a review of attachments/deployment of staff in the School Education Department, inter alia, ordered repatriation of the officers/officials working in the Project Directorate of SSA over and above its sanctioned strength. The petitioner has prayed that respondents, more particularly respondent No. 3 (Project Director, SSA, J&K at Jammu), be prohibited from acting on the aforesaid Government order and be directed to allow the petitioner to continue in his department as per order dated 21.07.2014. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order No. 123/DSEK of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 issued by respondent No. 2, the Director, School Education, so far as it pertains to him, with further prayers almost identical to the ones made in the first writ petition.

2. The petitioner, a Master in the Education Department and holding the designation of Incharge Headmaster, is stated to be the Union President of Employees Joint Action Committee, President of School Education Employees Co-ordination Committee and Chairman, J&K Teachers Forum. By Government order No. Edu-Gaz/05/2014 dated 15.07.2014, the petitioner was transferred alongwith the post from State Institute of Education, Srinagar, and posted as Consultant, SSA.

3. It appears that the Government in the School Education Department had a review of the attachments and deployments of staff made in the School Education Department which culminated into issuance of Government order no. 26-Edu of 2016 dated 02.02.2016 enjoining certain steps in the interest of administration. It, inter alia, ordered repatriation of the officers/officials working in the Project Directorate of SSA over and above its sanctioned strength. It was mentioned in the order that".. .these officials are deemed to have been relieved from SSA and shall report to the authorities, as indicated in Annexure 'A' to this Government order, who shall issue their orders of posting within three days". Name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 3 of Annexure 'A' to the aforesaid Government order, showing him as I/C Headmaster. He was required to report to Respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., the Director, School Education, Kashmir.

4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid Government order No. 26-Edu of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, challenged the same in writ petition, SWP No. 167/2016, on the ground of it being based on mala fides of respondent No. 3, and being violative of the transfer policy framed by the Government in terms of order No. 622-Edu of 2015 dated 22.12.2015.

5. In order to elucidate and buttress the ground of mala fides, it is stated that respondent No. 2 had been victimising the members of the Union, and in pursuit of his mala fide intentions, he transferred two of the union members, namely Mohammad Amin and Mohammad Afzal Bhat from their respective places. They filed writ petitions and obtained orders of stay in their favour. The petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of J&K Teachers Forum etc. made a representation to respondent No. 1, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Education Department, seeking his intervention in the transfers made by respondent No. 2. When respondent No. 2 came to know about such representation, he got annoyed and issued a press report which came in press, including 'the Kashmir Monitor' in its issue dated 30.01.2016, saying that he will not tolerate unionism in his department. It is alleged that it was pursuant to the aforesaid extraneous considerations of respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 1, with an object to shelter respondent No. 2, issued the said Government order No. 26-Edu of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, repatriating the petitioner from SSA. It is also averred that respondent No. 1 formulated transfer policy/guidelines to govern