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 Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, , Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under :-
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 Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, wherein the
Apex Court has held as under:-
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 Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:
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 National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri
Bhagwan and others, .
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 Rajendra Prasad Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Broadcasting, Government of India, Director, General, All India Radio Directorate Akashwani, Station Director, All India Radio and Station
Director, All India Radio, after considering the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa
Thevan this Court has held as under:
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 Gulzar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and another
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Damodar Dutt Sharma and Another, and also in the case of Jagendra
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338.
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.