ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 27.06.2019 and 04.07.2019 and for a direction to consider the transfer application submitted by the writ petitioner on 04.06.2019. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Leprosy Inspector, which was redesignated as Health Inspector. The petitioner was further posted as Food Inspector under the control of the first respondent.

3. The first respondent issued an administrative transfer and posting, transferring the Food Safety Officers. The order impugned reveals that general transfer and posting orders were issued on administrative reasons and also the request applications were also considered. The petitioner has challenged the transfer and posting orders as a whole and the learned Special Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court that the petitioner is not a party to the transfer order impugned in the writ petition and his application for transfer is no way connected with the administrative transfer orders passed by the competent authorities.

4. If the petitioner has already submitted an application for request transfer that is to be considered separately and merely for the consideration of his application, the entire administrative transfer order cannot be challenged by the writ petitioner. Thus, the very relief sought for is misconceived and the parties to the transfer orders have not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition and on that ground also, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Transfers are issued on administrative grounds for efficient and effective public administration. Efficient public administration is the constitutional mandate and under those circumstances, the act intended to provide an absolute power to the Government to transfer an employee from one revenue district to another revenue district on administrative grounds notwithstanding anything contained in the act or any special rules or adhoc rules.

6. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that day-to-day administration of the Government vests with the executives. The day-to-

day administration are to be effectively monitored and regulated by the competent authorities. Courts are not expected to interfere with the day- to-day administration of the Government departments. No doubt, on exceptional circumstances, the Court can entertain writ petitions, where an order of transfer is under challenge on certain limited grounds. If any order of transfer has been passed without jurisdiction or allegations of mala fides are raised or in certain exceptional circumstances, where materials are available to establish that the transfer is punitive, then the Courts can interfere, in order to mitigate the exceptional circumstances advanced. However, the scope of interference is undoubtedly limited and in the event of frequent interference by the Constitutional Courts in the matter of administrative transfer, the executives may not be in a position to run the administration in a smooth manner.

7. The next question arises, whether transfer gives a right to a government employee. The answer would be that transfer would not provide any right to a Government employee. Transfer is an incidental to service, more so a condition of service. When an offer of appointment is issued by the competent authorities, the acceptance of appointment is implied that the transfers are agreed and the employment is a contract between the employer and employee and the transfer being incidental, the scope for challenge is in narrow campus. Thus, when there is no right in the matter of transfer and transfers are not affecting the service conditions of an employee, then the entertainability of the writ petition is to be considered.

8. As stated above, entertainability rests on limited grounds viz., (i)

without jurisdiction; (ii) mala fide; and (iii) punitive, if established with sufficient materials to the satisfaction of the Courts.

9. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article

226 of t