S.P.Mehrotra - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, challenging the order dated 18th June, 2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). By the said order dated 18th June, 2002, petitioner No. 1 (Raghunandan Singh) has been transferred from Aligarh Region to Varanasi Region while petitioner No. 2 (Ashok Misra) has been transferred from Aligarh Region to Jhansi Region.
(2.) IT is, inter alia, alleged by the petitioners in this writ petition that the petitioners are in the service of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation on the post of Conductor, and that presently, the petitioners are posted at Kasganj Depot. in Aligarh Region ; and that on 8th June, 2002, a first information report was lodged against the petitioners in Case Crime No. 500 of 2002 under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. ; and that respondent No. 4 made recommendation to the higher authorities for transferring the petitioners to distant region ; and that on the recommendation of respondent No. 4, the petitioners have been transferred by the said order dated 18th June, 2002. IT is inter alia, further alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners are class III employees holding the post of conductor and their families would suffer great hardships on account of the said transfer order. I have heard Shri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are class III employees and their transfer from Aligarh to distant Region is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in Mashooq Ahmad v. Manager (Personnel and Industrial Relations) B.P.C.L. Ltd., Naini, Allahabad and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1603 : (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1474. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the family of the petitioners would suffer great hardships on account of the said transfer order.
(3.) SHRI P. N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioners are working on the post of conductor, and the nature of their job is such that they are required to travel from one place to another, and as such, there is no question of any hardship to the petitioners. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of transfer dated 18th June, 2002, has been passed by the Pradhan Prabandhak (Karmik), U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, on administrative grounds. The transfer is an incident of service. Normally, the High Court does not interfere with the transfer orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless there is a mala fide intention in issuing the transfer order or the transfer order is shown to have been issued in violation of certain statutory rules. In the present case, the petitioners have not shown any violation of statutory rules in issuing the impugned order of transfer, nor have they shown that there is a mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in issuing the transfer order. The only allegation in the writ petition is that in view of the first information report lodged on 8th June, 2002, respondent No. 4 recommended to the higher authority for transfer of the petitioners. In my opinion, even if this allegation is assumed to be correct, still this does not show any mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in issuing the transfer order. The Pradhan Prabandhak (Karmik), U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, has issued the impugned transfer order, and the said order states that the same has been issued on administrative grounds. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made in the said order.;