ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner who was working as Principal, Govt. HSS Girls,Sidhi has been transferred to Govt. HSS No.2, Sidhi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not be transferred from the CM Rise School just because he has not appeared in the examination for appointment in the CM Rise School , for the reason that he was over-age, and now he has been transferred because the State wants to appoint the candidates who have qualified in the examination for appointment in the CM Rise School.

Learned GA submits that the petitioner did not appear in the examination because he was over-age. It is also pointed out that transfer is an incidence of service, and as per the requirement, the petitioner or any other person can be transferred from one place to another. He further submits that petitioner has been transferred within the same district and not out of district.

It is settled principle of law that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee, which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. (see (2007) 8 SCC 150, Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. And others, Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574 and State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508).

I n Bhagwat Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others 2011(3) MPHT 479(DB) this Court has held :

It is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service.Appellant admittedly holds a transferable post.

Which employee should be posted where is a matter for the Appropriate Authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. It is further held that a person against whom allegations of malafides are made, has to be personally impleaded and plea of malafides has to be properly pleaded and proved. Burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. (See Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579 .) I n Rajesh Gupta Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & ors. ILR (2009) M.P. 103 , this Court has held :-

A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other.

He is liable to be transferred from one place to other.

Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead the affected party should approach the higher authority in the department.

Transfer is an incidence of service and can only be interfered with, if it runs contrary to any statutory provision, issued by incompetent authority or proved to be malafide. The employee has no indefeasible right to remain at a particular place. It is the prerogative of the employer to decide as to who should be transferred where.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation within a period of seven days from today along with certified copy of the order passed today before the authority concerned, which may be considered and decided, in accordance with law and the policy prevalent, within a further period of 30 days.

The petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE jk