R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER, who claims to be Junior Engineer, has filed, this writ petition, challenging the order of his posting passed on 29-6-1993, whereby he has been posted at Fatehgarh. Grievances of the petitioner, as put through his learned counsel, are two fold, namely, (i) in accordance, with the Government's guidelines, as contained in the letter dated 23-4-1994, ropy of which has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition, the petitioner cannot be transferred till he completes seven years of service at a paticular place ; and (ii) the respondents ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for transferring him in the district of Kanpur in view of the above policy decision, according to which a Junior Engineer, who is to retire within three years counted from 31-5-1993, should be posted at the place of his choice.
(2.) IT is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for two reasons; firstly, there is no violation of the guidelines in posting the petitioner at Fatehgarh. According to clause Ka-1 of the guidelines on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Junior Engineer, who has completed seven years of service at one place has got to be transferred. There is no provision in that cause prohibiting transfer of Junior Engineer, who has not completed seven years of service. According to this clause a Junior Engineer cannot be retained at a place where he has worked for seven years; but there is no prohibition against transferring him even before completion of seven years. Secondly, although the guidelines require appropriate authority to consider the request of the Junior Engineer for posting in the district of his choice, if he to retire within three years; but clause 2 (2) of the same guidelines makes complete prohibition of posting of the Junior Engineer in this home district and this prohibition has been extended even to those, who are to retire within three years. IT is admitted that Kanpur is the home district of the petitioner. On his own request he was transferred to Kanpur Region, which consists of several districts and the Chief Engineer, Kanpur Region has posted him in Fatehgarh as he could not have been posted in the district of Kanpur being his home district. Request of the petitioner for posting him in district Kanpur, as such, cannot be accepted. Though the transfer of the petitioner is not against the guidelines of the Government, referred to above; but presuming that it is so, this Court should not interfere with the transfer order, as in such cases the person aggrieved has a remedy of making representation before higher authorities. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : "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 malafide. 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 Courts 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 order." (emphasis supplied) According to the above decision of the Supreme Court even a transfer order has. been passed in violation of the Government instructions/guidelines, this Court should iot ordinarily interfere with such orders and the aggrieved employee has a remedy of making representation before higher authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, submitted that if the transfer order has been passed against the Government instructions or guidelines, this Court is bound to interfere with such an order and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the aggrieved employee should make a representation before higher authorities. For this purpose the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236. Relevant extract from which is reproduced below. "It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer." The above passage does not support the contention of the learned counsel. It only lays down that if the transfer order is passed mala fide or in violation of service rules and guidelines without any proper justification, the Court can interfere with such an order. It nowhere lays down that this Court should necessarily interfere with an order of transfer, if passed in violation of guidelines issued by the Government and the aggrieved employee cannot be asked to make representation before the higher authorities in the Department. In fact one of the grounds, on which the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, was that the petitioner therein has not exhausted the alternative remedy of making representation before the higher authorities.
(3.) THIS decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Roy (supra). Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, permitted the aggrieved employee to make representation before the higher authorities. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others (supra) to the effect that if an order of transfer has been passed in Violation of Government instructions, the aggrieved person should make representation before the higher authorities and the Court should not interfere with such an order, has not been over ruled or diluted in any manner by it in its later decision in the case of Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and others (supra). For the reasons given above, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed;