JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged his transfer order dated 30.06.2023. The petitioner is a Senior Auditor in the establishment of the Director, Co-operative Societies and Panchayat Audit, Lucknow, U.P. The transfer order has been passed in public interest.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his wife, who is an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, has been transferred from Bahraich to Amroha, as recently as on 26.06.2023. Her transfer has been made in accordance with the service rules and the transfer policy applicable to her employer, which attempts to post spouses at the same station.

3. It is pointed that the State Government have issued a transfer policy for the year 2022-23, where in paragraph no. 5(iv), it is provided :

^^4- ;fn ifr&iRuh nksuksa ljdkjh lsok esa gksa] rks mUgsa ;FkklaHko ,d gh tuin@uxj@LFkku ij rSukr djus gsrq LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk ldsxk**

4. It is harping on this policy that learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order transferring him to another region located 200 k.m. away from Pilibhit, is maninfestly illegal and arbitrary.

5. The submission further is that the petitioner's wife's rights under the service rules applicable to her, cannot be defeated, particularly, once she has been recently transferred to the petitioner's place of posting, wherefrom he has been shunted out. It is also argued that the respondents have followed a policy of pick and choose while ordering the impugned transfer.

6. It is submitted that transfer though an exigency of service, the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, particularly for a punitive purpose. It is argued that an order of transfer, that is based on a policy of pick and choose, is punitive in nature and not in public interest.

7. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Deepa Vashishtha v. State of U.P. and others, 1995 SCC OnLine All 897, where it has been held :

"15. However, in a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court rendered in Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh v. Darshjit Singh Grewal, JT 1993 (4) SC 387, their Lordships have ruled that policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the administration, and having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated it to all concerned, the administration is bound by it. It can, no doubt, change the policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.

16. Now, coming to the case in hand, the Government orders/guidelines/policy said to have not been adhered to, are contained in Annexures-16, 17 and 18 to this petition and they lay down thus:

1. If the couple is in education department, they both should be kept at one station at the time of appointment and transfer.

2. If one of the husband and wife belongs to education department and another to different department, even then efforts should be made to transfer one of them to that place where the other is posted.

3. Husband and wife posted at the same station should not be transferred.

4. On account of their postings to different places, husband and wife suffer difficulties, therefore, as far as possible, they should be kept at one place.

17. Thus, the guidelines in respect of couple in Government service, have taken care of that husband and wife should be placed at one station. Placing the words “as far as possible”, it is couched not in negative form and accordingly the same is interpreted by the Apex Court.

18. Taking into account the human considerations and social needs, the aforesaid guidelines have been framed and the basic idea behind it is that whole set up of the family may not be disturbed notwithstanding the fact that said guidelines are not in imperative form. Thus, it needs consideration with positive approach till the policy is not changed or amended in view of the decision in Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh's case(supra), and if it is not possible to keep husband and wife at one pla