1. This is yet another writ appeal questioning the decision of the learned Single Judge who has rejected the writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 18.5.2015, transferring the appellant from District – Umaria to District – Sidhi. Learned Single Judge whilst rejecting the writ petition has, however, observed that the appellant is free to pursue representation before the appropriate authority.

2. The argument before us is that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not giving the same benefit as given by the coordinate Bench (another Single Judge) on the same day. Reliance is placed on the order dated 4.8.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.12705/2015, wherein the coordinate bench observed that till the representation of the writ petitioner in that case was decided by the appropriate authority, the transfer order shall remain stayed. Indeed, that order was passed inspite of rejecting the relief claimed in the said writ petition questioning the transfer order.

3. Notably, both the orders are passed by the Single Bench of this Court and, therefore, cannot be cited as binding precedent in this intra Court appeal before the Division Bench. More so, the legal position is no more res integra. The Supreme Court has consistently observed that the representation filed by the employee does not create any right in his favour to remain at the same place from where he has been transferred, until the representation is decided. The fact that representation is pending will be of no avail to the employee concerned. He must first join at the transferred place, even if he has to pursue remedy of representation. Whether the concerned employee should be permitted to remain at the same place until his representation is decided, is also the prerogative of the appropriate authority. It is not for the Court to sit over that subjective satisfaction or dictate to the concerned authority in that behalf, being purely administrative matter. Understood thus, the fact that coordinate Bench (Single Bench) had given relief to another writ petitioner on the same day cannot be the basis to grant same relief to this appellant.

4. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.7.2015 in Writ Appeal No.381/2015. Observations in this decision, however, will be of no avail to the appellant in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, reported in (1989)2 SCC 602, which is directly on the point. In paragraph 4, the Supreme Court observed thus:

“4. Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incidence of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of h