- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the peti tioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.
(2.) IN all the above writ petitions, the petitioners who are working as Head master/ Headmistress in the Primary Schools have been transferred by the respondents on. different dates. The ground transferring the petitioners is comm9n that since the particular peti tioner had joined his/her present place of posting in the INstitution at the last therefore; he/she is being transferred being an excess teacher. Aggrieved with the transfer orders, the petitioners have approached this Court. Since common question of law is involved which is to be determined by this Court in all these writ petitions, therefore for the sake of convenience all the above petitions have been consoli dated and are being decided by a com mon judgment. Writ petition no. 940 (ss) of 2007 Smt. Pushpa Aswal vs. State and others shall be treated as the lead ing case. Brief facts, which emerge out from all the petitions, are identical ex cept the fact that one petitioner is trans ferred from place-'a' to place-'b' and other have been transferred from place-'c' to place 'd'.
(3.) THE respondents have filed coun ter affidavit in writ petition bo. 940 (ss) 2007 Smt. Pushpa Aswal vs. State and others to which the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Aswal has filed rejoinder affida vit in the aforesaid writ petition. THE re spondents have submitted that the coun ter affidavit filed in the said writ petition may be read in all other writ petitions. The law of transfer has been well settled by the Courts in a catena of de cisions. A person holding a transferable post, cannot claim a vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer or der does not affect any of his/her legal rights and Court should not interfere with the transfer order passed in public interest of administrative exigency. Transfer or posting are ordinary incidents of service and ordinarily any transfer or posting is presumed to have been made to satisfy the administrative exigency of service. No consent is required from the employee before transferring him. Even if the transfer order has been passed tak ing into consideration the complaints against an employee or has been passed on the directions of Minister of the De partment concerned on being receiving complaint from public should not be in terfered as the same would avoid any future trouble or incident which may take place. Since the transfer being in cident of service, for providing power to transfer no specific provision is required. Even if the transfer order has been passed in violation of Guidelines framed by the Govt. , the remedy before the employee is first to join at the new place of posting and then to make represen tation to the Authority concerned. It is true that the Guidelines framed by the Govt. for transfer of employee does not have statutory force, but at the same time, it is expected from the Govt. to follow the Guidelines which has been framed by the Govt. itself, otherwise there is no meaning to frame Guidelines, if the same are not to be followed. Again, though the Court should not or dinarily interfere with the transfer orders except on the ground that the transfer order has been passed mala- fide, stigmatic in nature and is a frequent transfer, the Court may interfere even if the Guidelines on the basis of which the transfer has been made is absolutely ar bitrary, the Court cannot sit silently and can interfere in the circumstances.;