B.M. Lal, J. - (1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails on order dated 4-7-1992 passed by respondent No. 1 contained to Annexure-4, whereby he has been transferred from Nagarpalika, Mauranipur, District Jhansi to Nagarpalika Jalesbar, District Etah.
(2.) At the very outset it need not be stressed that transfers which are made for administrative reasons and in public interest and the same being a concomitant and incident of service, are not to be interfered with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Transfer does not violate any of the legally enforceable lights available to public servants. Even if transfer is contrary to some Government Orders or executive inductions, recourse open for a public servant is to approach higher departmental authorities in order to redress the wrong done to him than to approach the Court. In this situation also, it would not b' proper on the part of a Government-servant to withhold compliance of this transfer order, instead firstly it should be duty complied with by joining at the transferred place and then resort to raise grievance, if any. It should not be forgotten that failure on his part in complying with the transfer order, may result and would make him liable to disciplinary action under the applicable service Rules. In this regard, reference, may be made to the view expressed by the Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 and 1993 (3) Judgments Today SC 673 Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1989 SC 1433 ; Gujarat Electricity Board v. A. S. Poshani.
(3.) But in the cases where order of transfer is made against any statutory mandatory rule, or ex facie it does appear malafide or passed in colourable exercise of power or motivated to cause harassment by transferring the employee frequently within a short span of period, the Court can certainly interfere so as to create sense of protection under law and thereby securing the ends of justice.;