- (1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the im pugned transfer order dated 30-05-2006 contained in Annexure No.-3 passed by the respondent No. 2. ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful func tioning of the petitioner as Kshetriya Yuva Kalyan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal Adhikari, Birokhal District Pauri Garhwal. iii) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. "
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Kshetriya Yuva Kalyan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal Adhikari on 24-02- 1987 and he was posted in the different places of the Uttaranchal. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was elected as a Presi dent of employees union of Prantiya Rakshak Dal Evam Yuva Kalyan Karamchari Singh, Uttaranchal at district level. THE petitioner had been work ing at Birokhal, district Pauri Garhwal and he had been transferred from Birokhal, district Pauri to district Tehri Garhwal. After receiving the transfer or der, the petitioner fell ill and he was under treatment in the Government hos pital Birokhal and during that period he remained on leave. It was further pleaded that the State Government had issued the transfer policy and the im pugned transfer order of the petitioner had been made in violation of the trans fer policy. It was further pleaded that the petitioner being the President of the union at district level, entitled not to be transferred for two years from the place where he is posted. It was further pleaded that the petitioner's children are studying in central school Birokhal in class 10th and 7th. THE transfer order also causes inconvenience to the peti tioner due to the studies of his children. When the higher authorities did not can cel the transfer order of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this writ pe tition before this court. Heard Sri B. N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. P. Sah, learned standing counsel for the re spondents. It was contended by the peti tioner that the transfer order has been made in utter violation of the transfer policy issued by the Government. The learned counsel further pointed out the transfer policy also emphasizes that the President of the district level of the em ployees' union would not be transferred within two years from his present place of posting. It was further contended that the children of the petitioners are study ing in Birokhal. The learned standing counsel refuted the contention and con tended that the government servants cannot contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position, as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific in dication to the contra, in the law gov erning or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory pro visions (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be inter fered with as a matter of course or rou tine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or con taining transfer policies at best may af ford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer or servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of serv ice as long as the official status is not affected adversely. The administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed have been shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions.
(3.) ANY person serving within the State of Uttaranchal, his services are subject to transfer from one place to other. It has been held in Shilpi Base (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC p/659 that the appellants who were the lady teachers were transferred of their desired places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents who were displaced by the appellants challenged the validity of the transfer or der before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India which was allowed and the transfer order was quashed. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing 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 orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide, A govern ment 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 pub lic interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC pi 357, the respondent was transferred to Pauri, Uttaranchal. He challenged the transfer order before the Central Admin istrative Tribunal on the medical ground and also on the ground of violation of the guidelines issued by the Government of India. The Central Administrative Tri bunal allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order. However, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and observed as under : "who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate author ity to decide. Unless the order of transfer 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 Government on the subject. Simi larly if a person makes any represen tation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigen cies of administration. 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 Govern ment employee a legally enforceable right. ";