Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.@mdashMatter is taken in the revised cause list.
2. None present on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned State counsel and perused the record.
4. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order of transfer dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent no. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, U.P., Lucknow.
5. From the perusal of record, it does not in dispute that the petitioner is holding transferable post.
6. The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with its 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 unelss it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide as such in view of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order 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.
7. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
8. Further, in the case of
It is needless to emphasise that a government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala, therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the respondent''s transfer to Dimpur.
9. view of the above said facts, relief as claimed by petitioner in present writ petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
