The court emphasized that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Tikamgarh to Panna. On earlier occasion he has been transferred on 25.02.2022 within a short span of six months, he will again be transferred.

2. It is submitted that a detailed representation (Annexure P/6) has been filed by the petitioner which is pending consideration before the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner is still working and has not been relieved by the respondents till date. He was on medical leave during the intervening period.

3. The other grounds of illness of his mother are taken by the petitioner in the writ petition. An innocuous prayer is that the respondents/authorities will direct to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously and till the decision he may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ripudaman Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others in W.A. No.1141/2019 vide order dated 16.07.2019, wherein the issue of frequent transfer was taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted the transfer order was passed on 25.08.2022 and the petition was filed on 12.10.2022. The petition is filed after considerable period, and he must have been relieved in pursuance to the transfer order. Therefore no question for grant of interim relief is made out.

6. As far as the frequent transfer is concerned, the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and as the transfer is a service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order. Virtually, no ground has been raised except the personal inconvenience which would be caused to the petitioner. As per settled legal proposition of law, the transfer order can be interfered only in exception circumstances as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held as under :

"7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legall