G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order of transfer dated 8 -8 -2001 by which the petitioner was transferred from district Chandauli to Lucknow and was attached with the office of Transport Commissioner. U.P.
(2.) THE petitioner was previously working as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Varanasi but he was transferred to the headquarters at Lucknow on 20 -4 -2001. On 15 -6 -2001 he was again transferred as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) Chandauli. By the impugned order dated 8 -8 -2001 he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached to the headquarters. Sri T.P. Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred several times within a brief period which was contrary to the policy and the guidelines laid down by the State Government by the Government Order dated 21 -4 -2001 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The Government Order lays down the guidelines which have to be followed in the matter of transfer of Government employees and paragraph 6 thereof provides that as far as possible no transfer order should be passed after 15 -6 -2001. It appears that this policy has been formulated keeping in view the academic session in the institutions in the State which normally begin in the first or second week of July. The power of the Court to interfere with an order of transfer of a Government servant in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been considered by the Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532 and para 4 thereof reads as follows: - In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders 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. If the Court continue to interfere with day -to -day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306, the Court after considering the effect of the guidelines issued in the matter of transfer observed as follows: - .........No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible............ The effect of the guidelines were again considered in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, and after taking note of the aforesaid observations made in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (Supra), the, Court held as follows in para 10 of the reports: This said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the respondents' 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 therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus the law is well settled that an order of transfer can be questioned on very limited grounds and if such an order is questioned in a Court, the State is not obliged to justify the order of transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It is not the case of the petitioner that his transfer is contrary to any statutory provision nor any such contention has been raised during the course of hearing of the petition. Even assuming that the transfer order is contrary to the policy, the same cannot be struck down by this Court in a writ petition.
(3.) SRI T.P. Singh has next contended that the petitioner had been rendering a very good service at Chandauli as during his tenure he checked a large number of vehicles and realised more revenue for the State. He has further urged that on account of the strict measures adopted by the petitioner, certain political persons felt aggrieved and he was transferred on their behest. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on some documents which show that the transport department earned more revenue in June -July 2001 as compared to the amount realised in the same period in the year 2000. Some figures have also been given regarding the number of vehicles which were checked and thereafter seized and challaned by the petitioner. The State has filed several counter affidavits wherein it is averred that by the mere fact that more revenue was earned by the department in June -July 2001, no inference can be drawn that the same was on account of any exceptional measures adopted by the petitioner. The counter affidavits filed by the State show that the fee structure had been enhanced and had undergone a substantial change after March. 2001 and therefore, realisation of revenue thereafter i.e. in the months June -July 2001 was bound to be more than what it was in the corresponding period of the year 2000. We have examined various affidavits and they do show that there was amendment in the fee structure in March 2001 and this was bound to result in automatic enhancement in the amount realised by the department. Certain other features have also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State. A system of Golden Pass was introduced with effect from 1 -8 -2001 and the period of its validity was three months. This system resulted in very substantial increase in the revenue in the month of August when the transport operators obtained the Golden Pass. Figures have also been given regarding the income from this source in September and October where there was a decline and reason being that the Golden Pass remains valid for three months and those who had taken a Golden Pass in August were not required to pay anything further in the months of September and October. The assertion of the petitioner is that he had checked a large number of vehicles during the short period he was posted at Chandauli which showed that he was rendering a good job. This assertion is denied by the respondent -State. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Transport Commissioner. U.P. personally came to Chandauli and organised a special checking drive for two days i.e. on 29th and 30th July in which 252 vehicles were seized. However in the remaining 28 days i.e. from 1st to 28th July, when the petitioner alone was the Incharge and was responsible for checking of vehicles, the total number of vehicles seized was 176. Therefore, these facts clearly show that the assertion of the petitioner that he had been doing very good work or that on account of his efforts realisation of the revenue by the State was substantially higher than in the corresponding period of the previous year is not correct.;