O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Bhanu Pratap Mishra, who is a Junior Engineer, in Rural Engineering Service, is posted at Gorakhpur. By order dated 13.6.1997 (Annexure 1) passed by the Director/Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Lucknow--respondent No. 2, he was transferred to Gonda along with three others. It appears, wife of the petitioner met a State Minister, on whose recommendation contained in letter dated 3.7.1997 (Annexure 2) the transfer order in respect of the petitioner was cancelled on 13.7.97 (Annexure 3). Soon thereafter, one Ramesh Kumar Pandey, a Press Reporter, Saptahik Gorakhpur-Ki-Chahat and Saptahik Monday Times, Gorakhpur made a complaint on 30.7.1997 (Annexure 4) to the Minister, Rural Engineering Service, against the petitioner, taking an exception to the continuance of the petitioner at Gorakhpur. On the same day, the concerned Minister passed an order on the complaint itself that the petitioner be not allowed to continue at Gorakhpur (In Ko Gorakhpur Main Na Rakha Jaye), obviously without verifying the allegations made against the petitioner. The Director-cum-the Chief Engineer of the Department readily passed a fresh order dated 13.8.1997 (Annexure 5) transferring the petitioner from Gorakhpur to Etawah. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition as being mala fide with the prayer that it may be quashed.
(2.) Despite order dated 15.9.1997, the State has failed to file a counter-affidavit. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(3.) At the outset, it may be observed that it is well-settled that the courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons, as a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. It is a normal feature of service. It is also an implied condition of service and the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The employer is the best Judge how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from the place of his present posting. Ordinarily, the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. When a public servant is transferred, he must comply with the order. In case there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it is open to him to make a representation to the competent authority. The ground that transferred employee has made a representation or that he is having some problems or difficulties in moving from one place to another, cannot be a justification to avoid or evade the transfer order. If the employee fails to proceed on transfer, he exposes himself to the risk of disciplinary action.;