By the Court.—Heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Sri Sharma contended that the petitioner was posted at Gautambudh Nagar only in July, 2008 and without assigning any reason within a span of seven months he has been transferred as Deputy Commissioner, Division-4, Basti which is wholly arbitrary and shows non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority. He further contended that the impugned order of transfer is also in violation of the Government Order dated 15.5.2008 laying down policy of transfer for the session 2008-09 which in para 9(7) provides that the handicapped persons or such employees whose dependants family members are effected from handicappedness shall be exempted from the normal transfer i.e. routine transfer. It is contended that the petitioner is handicapped as his both legs are amputated and, therefore, he ought to have been exempted from the normal transfer.

3. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary after receiving instructions from the department has produced before us the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner. (Trade Tax), Gautambudh Nagar to the Commissioner (Trade Tax), U.P. Lucknow and submitted that the order of transfer in respect to the petitioner has been passed purely in administrative exigency and in the interest of department. He has produced the aforesaid documents before us and after perusing the same we are satisfied that the transfer of petitioner in the present case is in the administrative exigency and in the interest of department.

4. Moreover, the order of transfer cannot be said to be in violation of policy laid down in the Government Order dated 15.5.2008 inasmuch as it only provides that the handicapped persons may be exempted from routine transfer which does not include a transfer made on administrative exigency.

5. Besides, violation of a policy guideline in respect to transfer does not provide any right to challenge the order of transfer as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444. In para 7 of the said judgment, their Lordships in the Apex Court held as under :

“The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.”

6. In S.L. Abbas (supra) the employee placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992(1) SCC 306, in support of his contention where certain guidelines have been issued, as far as practicable, they must be adhered to and based on the said decision, it was contended where transfer order has been issued in breach of administrative guidelines, when challenged, it is incumbent upon the authorities to give reasons, which justify breach of such guidelines and in absence thereof, the order has to be set aside being arbitrary and illegal. Negativing this contention and after referring the judgment in Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), the Apex Court in S.L. Abbas (supra) said :

“The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent’s contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondent’s contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions."

7. The judgment in S.L. Abbas (supra) has clearly set at rest the question that the order of transfer when challenged on the ground of violation of administrative instructions/guideli