- (1.) BY means of this writ petition un der section 226 of the Constitution of In dia, the petitioner has sought the follow ing reliefs : (i) To issue a writ, order, rule or di rection by way of certiorari to quash the transfer order of the petitioner dated 06-07-2006 filed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ pe tition. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction by way of mandamus directing the respondents not relieve the pe titioner from Bal Vikas Pariyojna Sitarganj, U. S. Nagar. (iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and cir cumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Khatima in the year 1983. THEreafter, she served the department from the year 1987 to 1991 at Sitarganj, 1991 to 1992 at Gadarpur and 1992 to 2003 at Khatima. She has been working in Sitarganj, U. S. Nagar since November 2003 to 2006. Vide order dated 06-07-2006 passed by the Director-respondent no. 2, the petitioner was transferred from Sitarganj to Dwarahat. Feeling aggrieved by the transfer order, this petition has been filed. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no complaint against the petitioner and as such her transfer order was not in accordance with policy Lald down by the State Government. It was further contended that the petitioner has been living separately from her husband after judicial separation. She is living with her two small children and her old aged father. The father of the petitioner had been operated twice and as such the petitioner is not in a position to leave her father at this stage all alone. It was further contended that the transfer order of the petitioner is malafide and against the transfer policy of the State Government. Learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the contention. It is a well settled position of law that the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the trans fer orders made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A government servant hold ing 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 ap proach the higher authorities in the de partment. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate au thority to decide. Unless the order of trans fer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While order ing the transfer, there is no doubt, the au thority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any represen tation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies ol administration. The guidelines with regard to the transfer of the employees does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. {see Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Major General J. K. Bansal v. Un ion of India, (2005) 7 SCC 227 ). In the instant case, I have specifi cally asked about the previous transfer during her employment. The learned coun sel for the petitioner informed that the pe titioner was appointed in the department and she remained at Khatima from 1983 to 1987, Thereafter, she was posted at Sitarganj from the year 1987 to 1991. From 1991 to 1992 she was posted at Gadarpur and 1992 to 2003 she was again posted at Khatima and thereafter she had been working at Sitarganj. These postings reveal that she had always been posted in the plain area. It is pertinent to mention here that the State of Uttaranchal comprises 90% hill area. The petitioner had been posted for the first time in the hill area. In the case of Shiipi Bose (supra), the lady teachers of primary schools were transferred on their requests to places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents, who were displaced by the teachers, challenged the validity of the transfer orders before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was allowed and the transfer orders were quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing as follows : "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the trans fer 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 compe tent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instruc tions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order in stead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the depart ment. "
(3.) THERE is no malafide or violation of statutory rules in the case in hand. In the case of S. L. Abbas (supra), the respondent-Abbas was working at Shillong in the office of the Botanical Survey of India and his wife was also working there in Central Government office. He was transferred from Shillong to Pauri in the hills of U. P. (now in Uttaranchal ). He challenged the transfer order before the Central Administrative Tribunal on medical ground and also on the ground of vio lation of guidelines contained in the Government of India OM dated 3-4-1986. The Tribunal allowed the peti tion and quashed the transfer order When the matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and observed as under: "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate author ity to decide. Unless the order of trans fer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Govern ment on the subject. Similarly if a per son makes any representation with re spect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same hav ing regard to the exigencies of admin istration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a le gally enforceable right. " In the case in hand, two children are studying in a particular place and the old aged father of the petitioner is living with her. These are the grounds which are to be considered by the higher authorities. There is no statutory rule under which such exigencies are covered.;