Violation of transfer policy guidelines does not render the transfer order illegal. A transfer order can only be challenged if it violates a statutory provision, is proven to be malafide, changes service conditions to the detriment of the employee, or is issued by an incompetent authority.

Judgment

Sujoy Paul, J.;-

1. Since the same transfer order is challenged in these petitions, with the consent of parties, matters are analogously heard and are decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 7731/2012.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary, assailed the order dated 13.07.2012, whereby he is transferred. It is assailed on three counts. (1) As per the transfer policy dated 31st March, 2012 (Annexure P-2), the transfer after 15th July, 2012 are impermissible. (2) The transfer beyond 15% are impermissible. (3) The Collector vide Annexure P-1 dated 17.07.2012 opined that the same is against the transfer policy.

3. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Per Contra, Shri Rathore supported the order and submits that it is a purely administrative order. The transfer policy dated 31st March, 2012 is an executive instruction. It is guideline and doesn't have any statutory force.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2007) ILR M.P. 1329] has held that merely because a guideline/transfer policy is violated, it will not render the transfer order as illegal.

6. Thus, I am unable to hold that the transfer order is bad in law because of violation of Annexure P-2. So far third ground aforesaid is concerned, a perusal of order Annexure P-5 shows that the Collector by his subsequent communication dated 20.09.2012 intimated the Commissioner that the transfer order is in accordance with the policy. The Annexure P-5 reflects the said stand of the Collector. Even otherwise for violation of transfer policy, no interference is warranted by this Court.

7. The transfer order can be challenged only if it violates a statutory provision, proved to be a malafide, changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment or found to be issued by an incompetent authority. None of these grounds are available in the present petition. In the present case, there is no ingredient which warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The transfer is a condition of service and it is prerogative of the employer to decide as to where an employee is to be posted. In this view of the matter, I am only inclined to observe that the petitioner may prefer a representation before the competent authority and the said authority may deal with it in accordance with law. I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petitions are disposed of. No costs.