Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 40 (HP)

UTTAM SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-03-10

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2005
JUDGMENT Ms. Bakhshish Kaur, Chairman.—The applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order Annexure-A/3 dated September 3, 2004 whereby he has been transferred from Government Primary School Kakri (Anni) to Government Primary School Badogi District Kullu in an illegal and arbitrary manner in violation of transfer policy framed by the respondent State. 2. The original application has been resisted on the ground that the applicant is a JBT Teacher who has a district cadre, therefore, he can be transferred anywhere within the District Kullu. The impugned order has been passed with the prior approval of the Government as the applicant is serving within a radius of 6 Kms. since August 1, 1998. 3. I have heard Mrs. Trisha Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Abhilasha Kumari learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 4. The substantive prayer of the applicant is that once he was adjusted at Government Primary School Kakri on the basis of request made by him then he could not be transferred without permitting him to complete the normal tenure of three to five years. Secondly, the transfer order could not be passed in mid academic session which is against the transfer policy. 5. Mrs. Trisha Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant also contended that specific case has been set up in original application. The applicant was adjusted and his request for adjustment was acceded by the respondents and this fact has not been specifically denied by the respondents nor any reason has been given as to why the applicant has been transferred after a short stay of one year and three months. 6. There is no denying the fact that applicant was adjusted at his request. Accordingly he had remained there for one year and three months but this period cannot be termed as short because the respondents have specifically averred in the written reply that the applicant is serving within the radius of 6 Kms. from August 1, 1998 till date. The Government Primary School Badogi and Government Primary School Kakri are situated in Anni Block and the distance between the two is not more than 6 Kms. 7. Above being the position when the applicant is serving in this area within the radius of 6 Kms. from August 1, 1998 till date. The Government Primary School Badogi and Government Primary School Kakri are situated in Anni Block and the distance between the two is not more than 6 Kms. 7. Above being the position when the applicant is serving in this area within the radius of 6 Kms. since August 1998 then impugned order of transfer passed by the competent authority cannot be termed as actuated by mala fide nor the impugned order can be termed as punitive. Transfer is not only an incident of service but a condition of service and is necessary in public interest. It is not open to interference by Courts. 8. It is well settled that an employee has got no legal right to be posted for ever at any particular place and place of his/her choice. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, (2004) SCC (L&S) 1009." 9. In the "State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486", under para 3 their lordships of the Apex Court have been pleased to observe as under:— "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." 10. It is settled proposition of law that a transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or in fraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. It is settled proposition of law that a transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or in fraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. In this regard reliance is placed on "N.S. Nicose v. The Director General Border Road and another, (SC) 2004 (2) SLR 6"; Indian Council of Agriculture Research v. Atiur Rehman, 2004 (2) SLR 609 and "Avani Kanta Rai v. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169; 1995 (8) SLR 687". 11. In "Union of India and others v. Janardhan Deva Nath and another, (2004) SCC (L&S) 63". It has been observed that transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the person concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type to scrutiny, approach, assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency, decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untowards administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. 12. Above being the position, the impugned order does not seem to have been passed in violation of statutory provisions or the transfer policy formulated by the State. In fact, no legal or fundamental right of the applicant has been infringed, consequently the original application is bound to fail. For the reasons given above, there being no merit in the original application, the same is hereby dismissed. O.A. dismissed.