M. Jeyapaul, J.—The orders of transfer passed by the respondents transferring the writ petitioners to Jammu & Kashmir which is one of the hard tenure stations were challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal chose to dismiss the plea for quashing the orders of transfers.
2. Writ petitioner Parminder Singh who was appointed in erstwhile Department of Telecommunication as Telecom Operator in the year 1983 was promoted as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) on 15.11.1993 and posted in Ferozepur. On 4.10.2004, he was promoted to the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) and posted at Chandigarh, Punjab Circle. Writ petitioner Pritpal Singh was posted as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) from 1.3.1993 to 24.4.2002 in Ferozepur SSA. He was posted as Assistant Director (Vigilance) in Circle Office, Chandigarh.
3. Both the above writ petitioners have challenged the order of their transfer passed by the respondents from Punjab Circle to Jammu & Kashmir Circle which is a hard tenure station.
4. The Tribunal having adverted to the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the respondents have rightly effected the transfer of these writ petitioners to a hard tenure station, namely, Jammu & Kashmir Circle and therefore, the question of interfering with the official transfer cannot be interfered with.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners vehemently submitted that the respondents have adopted "Pick and Choose Policy" in transferring these writ petitioners to Jammu & Kashmir Circle. Except few Circles in North India, no other Circle from the South India was targeted by the respondents to effect hard tenure posting. In other words, discrimination in the matter of posting to hard tenure station was alleged. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners further submitted that these writ petitioners in fact served in Ferozepur for more than the required period which was in fact declared hard tenure station. Therefore, they should not have been transferred again to hard tenure station.
6. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpa Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 (Sup2) SCC 659 has held as follows :-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
7. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has reiterated the above dictum in Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 (Sup.1) SCC 704 as follows:-
"8. In the present case, it cannot be said that the transfer order of the respondent transferring him out of Kerala Circle is violative of any statutory rule or that the transfer order suffers on the ground of mala fide. The submissions of the respondent that some of his juniors are retained by Kerala Circle and that his transfer is against the policy of the Government posting the husband and wife in the same station as far as possible cannot be countenanced since the respondent holding a transferable post has not vested right to remain in the Kerala Circle itself and cannot claim, as a matter of right, the posting in that Circle even on promotion."
8. In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused."
9. It is a well settled proposition of law that transfer is an incidence of service. The Courts shall not interfere with the transfer of an employee which will affect adversely the effective administration by the employer. The employer is entitled to effect transfers in case of administrative exigencies and also in best public interest. Of course, if the transfer order was effected in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the foundation of proved mala fide on the part of the employer, the question of challenging the transfer by an employee may arise. In case a transfer was effected in terms of the policies and executive instructions or orders, the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the order of transfer. Of course, the employee may challenge the transfer on the ground that the service Rule prohibits such a transfer or that an incompetent Authority has effected transfer. As the transfer is a necessary concomitant of every service in case of administrative exigencies, the High Court should restrain itself from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.
10. In the instant case, the writ petitioners are governed by the BSNL Transfer Guidelines. As per the above Guidelines, the Executives with largest stay in a particular Circle would be considered first for transfer as a substitute for the officer who has completed hard tenure posting in a particular Circle. The above transfer policy had come into effect only on 7.5.2008. Therefore, the service, if any, put by the writ petitioners prior thereto in Ferozepur shall not be counted as service put by the writ petitioners in hard tenure station. The writ petitioners have not come out with any material to substantiate that the other Executives who have put in more number of service in those stations have not been considered for transfer to hard tenure posting. The respondents who have been serving in the same Circle for a quite length of period after the above transfer policy has been effected cannot lawfully challenge the transfer effected squarely as per the guidelines and policies formulated by the respondents.
11. It may be a case where the respondents thought it fit to minimise the inconvenience that may be caused to the Executives serving in far South Circles by effecting transfer of the Executives serving in the Circles which has proximity to the hard tenure stations. But the writ petitioners have not pointed out any discrimination practised by the respondents in the matter of effecting transfers from the Punjab Circle.
12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the writ petitioners who have not proved any mala fides on the part of respondents or discrimination practised by them or violation of any Rule or executive decision are not entitled to seek for quashing the orders of transfer effected by the respondents in terms of their guidelines. We do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Therefore, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.
