1982 Supreme(MP) 582

G. G. Sohani and. R. K. Vijaywargiya, JJ.
Ganeschandra Joshi v. State of M. P.
M. P. No. 572 of 1982 (I); Decided on 13-12-1982.

Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- transfer of civil servant not shown to be malafide -- provision of law contravened -- no interference called for.

        The petitioner is posted as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School Kanad, District Shajapur. Prior to his posting at Kanad, the petitioner was posted at Ujjain, where his wife was also posted as Lower Division Teacher. The petitioner has assailed the order of his transfer on the ground that is it discriminatory and violative of the provisions of the Education Code, which provides that husband and wife, as far as as possible, should be posted at the same station.

        Held : In the return filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the petitioner was posted at Ujjain for a very long time and that his transfer was effected on account of administrative grounds as the post at Kanad was lying vacant for a long time. It was further stated that the guidelines contained in the Education Code, 1973 only provides that as far as possible except in the urban areas, husband and wife should be posted at the same place. It was stated that the wife of the petitioner had never made any application for her transfer to Kanad.

        The petitioner who appeared before us in person stated that his transfer was malafide, but in the petition, no facts have been set out, on the basis of which the interference of malafides could be drawn. The ground urged in the petition that the transfer of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the Education Code, is devoid of any merit. The Education Code consists of executive instructions and Clause 7 of the instructions issued by the Under Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Education on 17th April 1973, merely provides that if the husband and wife are both employed in the education department, then on their application, they would be posted at the same place provided it is not an urban area. The petitioner stated before us that neither his wife had applied nor does he want that his wife should be posted at Kanad where he is posted. His contention is that his transfer from Ujjain is contrary to the aforesaid Clause 7 of the instruction. That contention cannot be upheld.

        The petitioner has not been able to show that the order of his transfer from Ujjain to Kanad is malafide or that it violates any provision of any provision of law. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of tae Constitution. Petition dismissed.