Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.@mdashHeard Shri Ved Prakash Verma, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of transfer dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party no. 2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad by which he has been transferred from Faizabad to Ballia.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned order of transfer submits that it is against the government transfer policy as well as the same has been passed in a mid session, in case if the petitioner is compelled to go on transfer, the study of his children will suffer in the present era of competition. Hence, the same is arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard learned counsel counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unless it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide.
6. In the present case as argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of transfer policy, liable to be set aside because in the case of
The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
7. The said view has been reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the Oder of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer.
8. In the case of
The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent''s contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondent''s contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefore. It does not also say that the Court or Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/ guidelines are not followed, much less can be characterized as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the oder of transfer can be question in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions.
9. The said view was again reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
10. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is against the principle of natural justice as the same has been passed during mid-session of the studies of his son/daughter, is also got no force as in the case of
The issue of transfer in mid academic session was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and it was held that" the fact that children of the employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent." Therefore, it is for the employer to examine as to whether transfer of an employee can be deferred till the end of the current academic session. The Court has no means to assess as what is the real urgency of administrative exigency. Thus, the Court is not inclined to consider this submission at all.
11. The same view has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of
12. No other point has been pressed or argued before me in the matter in question.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in impugned order of transfer dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure No. 1) passed by O.P. No. 2. However, as prayed, it is provided that petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation to O.P. No. 2/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad within two weeks from today in respect to his grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition annexing all relevant documents and materials in support of his case along with self address stamped envelope and after receiving the same O.P. No. 2 shall consider and dispose of by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks thereafter and communicate to him.
14. With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed.
