Point of Law : Guideline in respect of transfer does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right - Government servant has no right to remain posted at the place of his choice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by the Inspector General, P.A.C.Eastern Zone, Prayagraj i.e. respondent no.3 , whereby the petitioner has been transferred from 34th Vahini P.A.C. Varanasi to 42nd Vahini P.A.C. Prayagraj. Further the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to permit him to continue at his present place of posting i.e. 34th Vahini P.A.C. Varanasi.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Company Commander (Dal Nayak) i.e. Group "C" State Government Employee and he is presently posted at 34th Vahini P.A.C. Varanasi. The petitioner has been working on the said post with extraordinary devotion and honesty and the service of the petitioner is unblemished and exemplary. The petitioner has always discharged his duties with full satisfaction of his superior authorities. However, under the order dated 22nd September, 2021, the petitioner has been transferred from 34th Vahini P.A.C. Varanasi to 42nd Vahini P.A.C. Prayagraj. It is against this order of transfer that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 has no authority/power/jurisdiction to pass the order impugned transferring the petitioner, who is Group "C" State Government Employee. He further submits that since the family of the petitioner is residing at District Varanasi and at present it is impossible for the petitioner to shift the entire family with bag and baggage in these hard times at his transferred place of posting. Against the order impugned, certain personal difficulties which have been faced by the petitioner, have also been highlighted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

5. On the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is without jurisdiction as respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction/power/authority to pass such order, Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that in compliance of the order of the Court dated 30th March, 2022, he has received the instructions and on the basis of the same, Mr. Upadhyay submits that respondent no.3 has jurisdiction/authority to pass an order transferring a Group-C State Government Employee like the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned is legal and valid. Mr. Upadhyay further submits that a P.A.C. personnel can only remain posted in a particular district for not more than 12 years, whereas the petitioner has completed 13 years and 11 months in a same district i.e. Varanasi. Lastly, Mr. Upadhyay submits that since the petitioner has disobeyed the order of his superior authorities like the order impugned by not joining at the transferred place of posting in compliance of the same, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the State-respondents, therefore, submits that the impugned order of transfer does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Therefore, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

6. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that seeing the personal difficulties as faced by the petitioner, after his joining, his request for transfer to 34th Vahini P.A.C. Varanasi from 42nd Vahini P.A.C. Prayagraj may be directed to be decided in accordance with law.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner a