SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has been transferred by Inspector General of Police, Meerut Region, Meerut vide order dated 24.5.2008 from Bulandshahr to Baghpat. By means of order dated 4.6.2009 he has been relieved by S.S.P., Bulandshahr to enable him to join at the place of transfer at Baghpat. The petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer dated 24.5.2009 is being sought to be given effect to after more than a year and in the meantime, petitioner's father has suffered brain haemorrhage and his children are also in the midst of session, as such, the impugned order cannot be given effect to. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Balvir Singh v. Director Animal Husbandary, Lucknow and others, 1996(1) UPLBEC 353 which is an interim order passed by this Court, staying the transfer order in the mid term, relying on Apex Court's decision in Director of School Education Madras and others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another, 1996(1) UPLBEC 347. Having considered the submission, however, I do not find force in any of the submissions. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of statutory provision or the authority had no jurisdiction or that the impugned order is mala fide. Transfer being exigency of service and the petitioner holding a transferable post, he can be transferred from one place to another. Which employee should be posted at which place, is the discretion of the employer concerned and no judicial review is permitted in such matter unless it can be shown that the impugned transfer is contrary to rules or is without jurisdiction or is bad on account of mala fide.
(3.) SO far as the above interim order is concerned, an interim order is not binding precedence in deciding the matter. Moreover the Apex Court's decision in Karuppa Thevan (supra) has been considered in a Division Bench decision later on by this Court in Gulzar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 2006 (5) AWC 4755, wherein the proposition of law as advanced above was not found to be laid down in the said case. This Court, noticing Karuppa Thevan's judgment, observed as under: "The case before the Hon'ble Apex Court pertains to education department and while granting indulgence clearly took into consideration the factum of absence of any urgent exigency of service in the case before it as is apparent from the following: "We are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent." (Para-2) ;