ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Pondi - 3, Janpad Panchyat Chitrangi, District Singrauli to Gram Panchayat Jharkatiya, Janpad Panchyat Chitrangi, District Singrauli.

It is pointed out that the petitioner was recently transferred in December, 2021 at the present place of posting and within a short period one year, he has again been transferred by the impugned order only to accommodate the respondent No.5 that too at the behest of local MLA. It is submitted that a representation (Annexure P/3) has been filed, which is pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and is a service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and has submitted that in violation of condition of transfer policy, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to get his representation decided at an early date.

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

From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was transferred at the present place of posting in the year 2021 and within a short span of one year by the impugned order, he has again been transferred.

As far as allegation with respect to recommendation of local MLA is concerned, no document has been filed to show that the transfer has been made on the basis of the recommendation of the local MLA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 has held as under:

"In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order."

The law with respect to transfers is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as employee does not have a right and Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach authorities by pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines."

In Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the ma