The main legal point established is that unless a transfer order is mala-fide or in violation of service rules, it should not be interfered with by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. The petitioner, Shri Abdul Baten Prodhani has assailed order dated 2nd July, 2015 passed by Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Dedanggre, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya whereby the petitioner was transferred from Haripur Government L.P. School to Diiapguri Government L.P. School.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of petitioner is that he was appointed as L.P. School teacher vide Order No. 764, dated 10th November, 1989. The petitioner is working as assistant teacher in Haripur Government L.P. School, Dedanggre. West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. The petitioner received letter dated 30th April, 2015 from the office of Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Dedanggre, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya to show cause regarding negligence of duty and the petitioner sent his explanation on 2nd May 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2015 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Haripur Government L.P. School to Dhapguri Government L.P. School which is against the principle of natural justice.

3. The respondents have contested petition and filed counter affidavit. Respondent No. 3 has also filed counter affidavit.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused materials on record.

5. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the decisions of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Another, (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 and State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, (2001) 5 SCC 508. The principle of law unfold in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of service conditions of an employee and is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala-fide or that the service rules prohibit, such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.

6. In the case of B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1955, their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows:

"4 We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges that transfer is always understood and constructed as an incident of service. The words or other conditions of service in juxtaposition to the proceeding words denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension' in R. 19(1)(a) must be constructed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the Government servant and some disadvantage touching his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave, etc. It is well understood that transfer of a Government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service of his disadvantage. That a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, I non-transferable post......"

7. In case State of Punjab and Others vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486, the Apex Court held as under:

"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly er