ORDER

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 30.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) has been challenged whereby the petitioner who is working as Middle School Teacher has been transferred from Government Middle School, Hardua Mal to Government Middle School, Devgarh which is 150 k.m. away from the present place of posting, on administrative exigency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order is in blatant violation of transfer policy. He further submitted that the transfer has been effected in violation of the provisions of RTE Act 2009. The transferred place is 150 k.m. away. If the petitioner is transferred then only one teacher would be left in the school. Wife of the petitioner is also a government servent and has been posted in the year 2019 to a place nearby Hardua Mal. It is also submitted that the children of the petitioner have been admitted in the school. His mother is 75 years old and there is no one to look after her. On these grounds, he prays for quashing of the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that no interference with the order of transfer is warranted as the same has been done owing to administrative exigency. Moreover, the transfer policy is in the nature of guidelines. There is no statutory violation of any rules and no malafide has been pleaded. With the aforesaid, he submitted that the petition being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State. Moreover, it is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dt. 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. 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. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should no t be interfered with b y the Court. I f any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC

402,Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].

In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of mala fide or violation of statutory rules, the twin grounds available for interference.

The petitioner has no statutory right to remain posted at any particular place. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)

JUDGE DPS