ORDER

1. Assailing the order dated 7.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.22559 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a contractual employee posted at District Project Manager in M.P. Deendayal Antyodaya Yojna, State Rural Livelihood Mission in District Raisen and he has been transferred from District Raisen to District Damoh on the same post. The petitioner has challenged the order only on the ground that a contractual employee cannot be transferred even on the ground of administrative exigency and only in special circumstances, he may be transferred whereas in the impugned order passed by the respondents does not reflect any special circumstances, which led them to transfer a contractual employee.

3. Challenge made to the impugned order is on the ground that the transfer of a contractual employee can be made subject to establishment of ‘special circumstance’ and not otherwise as per the transfer policy of the State Government. It is argued that in terms of Clause 9.1 of the policy dated 24.2.2020, the contractual employees engaged for a specific work and purpose cannot be transferred to another place. Their services cannot be transferred until and unless there are administrative exigencies and special circumstances. No specific reasons have been mentioned in the impugned transfer order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of Clause 9.1 of the policy dated 24.2.2020. Hence, this appeal.

4. Per contra, State counsel has supported the impugned order. The learned Writ Court while considering all the aspects of the matter and by placing reliance upon the order dated 8.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lavkush Kumar Sahu v. State of M.P. and others (Writ Appeal No.986 of 2021) (reported in 2021(4) JLJ 512) has rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is contended that there is no absolute bar on transfer of a contractual employee and looking to the administrative exigency, they can be transferred in special cases. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee. From the perusal of the Clause 9.1 of the policy, it is apparently clear that on administrative ground the transfer can be made. The relevant portion of Clause 9.1 of the policy provides that ^^Á'kklfud O;oLFkkvksa dks ns[krs gq, fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkaukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxkA** The reasons for transfer are not required to be reflected in the transfer order. The relevant clause of the transfer policy is that generally a contractual employee cannot be transferred but the transfer order reflects that on administrative grounds but in special circumstances, the same can be made. The transfer order can be interfered only in exceptional circumstances. There is no specific rider for not transferring a contractual employee; like the petitioner, therefore, no case for interference is made out. The Court is not supposed to put forth assessment of its views in the matter of administration. Neither the Court could question the sufficiency or justifiability of the decision. The administration should be allowed to run smoothly. The Court is not supposed to interfere with the administration particularly with regard to transfers, which are not outcome of mala fide, biasness or vindictiveness. Since the impugned order of transfer was passed owing to administrative exigency in ‘special circumstances’ which is permissible as per Clause 9.1 of the policy dated 24.2.2020, in our opinion, the learned Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should be in very rare cases.

7. The law with respect to the transfer is well settled in large number of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India