The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine.

RAJIV SHARMA and Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, JJ.--Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 5.

2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 12.5.2010 passed by the opposite party No.2-Special Secretary, Medical and Health, U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Senior Consultant, S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi to Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Lalitpur.

3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after being selected through U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 14.2.1988 and while working as such, he was promoted on the post of Senior Consultant at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi in the month of September, 2009. He submits that pursuant to the oral complaint being moved by unknown person, opposite party No. 6 Hon'ble Minister, Medical and Health, U.P. Civil Secretariate, Lucknow, summoned the petitioner, to which the petitioner tendered his explanation, wherein it has been stated that the patient was not operated prior to one month as his hemoglobin was below 5% and as soon as his hemoglobin was above 10%, he had operated the patient. He submits that there is no complaint ever made against the petitioner in his 22 years of service. Further, the impugned transfer order has not been passed either in public interest or in administrative exigency and as such, the petitioner has been transferred merely on the dictate of the Hon'ble Minister. He also submits that it is the policy decision of the Government that no one will be transferred during financial year 2010-11.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer at Varanasi in the year 1988 and has continued as such till 2009. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Consultant and was posted at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi and as such, keeping in view more than 20 years service rendered at Varanasi, he was transferred by means of the impugned order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Before dealing with the merits and demerits of the case, it would be relevant to refer various case laws on the subject.

6. In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta1, the Apex Court has held that:

1. 1992 (1) SCC 306.

"No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider It feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees."

7. In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas2, the employee placed reliance on Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), in support of his contention where certain guidelines have been issued, as far as practicable, they must be adhered to and based on the said decision, it was contended where transfer order has been issued in breach of administrative guidelines, when challenged, it is incumbent upon the authorities to give reasons, which justify breach of such guidelines and in absence thereof, the order has to be set aside being arbitrary and illegal. Negativing this contention and after referring the judgment in Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), the Apex Court in S.L. Abbas (supra) said:

2. AIR 1993 SC 2444=1993 (67) FLR 293 (SC).

"The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the responden