Violation of transfer policy or executive order does not confer any vested right on the employee to challenge the transfer order. Specific details and pleadings are required in case of allegations of malafide.

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

The petitioner is a Form Superintendent at Government Agricultural Form Baijnathpur, District Mainpuri. He moved an application to second respondent for his transfer from Mainpuri to Etawah on the ground of illness of his wife on 25.05.2016. Upon his application the third respondent issued the transfer order dated 29.06.2016 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Mainpuri to Etawah and in his place one Shri Krishna Pal Singh was transferred from Etawah to Agra. Later vide order dated 22.07.2016 the aforesaid transfer order dated 29.06.2016 was cancelled/ modified. Consequently, Krishna Pal Singh remained at Etawah and the petitioner was transferred to Agra. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has instituted this writ proceeding.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that transfer order was cancelled at the behest of the sitting M.L.A. However, in the writ petition there is no fact mentioned about the intervention of the M.L.A. in the matter. Krishna Pal Singh, who was transferred from Etawah to Agra, also preferred Writ Petition No. 22172 (S/S) of 2016(Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), challenging his transfer order. However the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition has made a statement that, that writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent order passed on 22.07.2016(Annexure-1 to the instant writ petition).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the present petitioner in the companion writ petition(Writ Petition No. 22172 (S/S) of 2016, which has become infructuous, wherein he has made allegation against the sitting M.L.A. that at his behest transfer order of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is also stated that the transfer order has been cancelled contrary to the transfer policy of the State Government. No other submission has been made.

4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has not made any allegation of malafide against the sitting M.L.A., nor he has made him party in the present writ petition. Hence, plea of the malafide cannot be considered.

5. The learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein it has been held that Member of Parliament of the Member of Legislative Assembly can make a complaint for the transfer of any employee.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that transfer is an exigency of service. Ordinarily the Court should not interfere in the matter of transfer except on the limited grounds i.e. violation of statutory rule and malafide. Violation of transfer policy or executive order does not confer any vested right on the employee to challenge the transfer order in the Court. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas: (1993) 4 SCC 357 ; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others: 1991 Supp 2 SCC 659; and, N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others: (1994) 6 SCC 98 .

8. In the present case, insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is against the transfer policy is concerned, as observed above, even if there is violation of any policy or executive order, there is no illegality which gives right to the employee to challenge it.

9. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is infected by malafide is concerned the petitioner has not made any allegation of the malafide against the M.L.A., neither he has made him party. Moreover, the pleadings of the writ petition do not indicate proper details and the particulars of malafide. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ,