RAJ KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order Annexure -P/1. Earlier petitioner was transferred by order dated 26/11/2011, which was challenged by him by filing W.P. No. 8088/11. In the said case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated as under:

(3.) IN view of the petitioner's statement in the first round that after transfer order is deferred till March, 2012, he will carryout the transfer order. The petitioner now cannot be permitted to say that transfer order dated 07/03/2012 is bad in law. Transfer is an incident of service. Transfer order can be interfered with only if it runs contrary to any statutory provision, changes service condition to petitioner's detriment, proved to be a malafide order or passed by an incompetent authority. None of these grounds are available in the present petition. This is a prerogative of the employer to decide as to which employee is more suitable for the purpose of posting. The petitioner has not impleaded any authority by name and in absence thereof no malice can be attributed and established. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in : 1995 (2) SCC 570 [State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal] and by Division Bench of this Court in : 2011 (3) MPHT 479 [Bhagwat Singh Verms Vs. State of M.P. and others]. This is the prerogative of the employer to decide posting of petitioner and respondent No. 7 on transfer. Merely because the decision of department is more in favour of respondent No. 7, would not mean that she has been accommodated or there is any illegality in it. The Apex Court in Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others [ : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659] held as under: -