Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties. and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the order of transfer dated 10.10.2011 ( Annexure no.3) passed by opposite party no.2 is under challenge. From the perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding transferable post.
(3.) 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 unless 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 Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 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.;