PANWAR, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed without any prayer clause but the factual matrix and the grounds taken therein lead to presume that the same has been filed seeking direction for quashing the transfer order Annx. 8 dated 15-6- 2002 and setting aside the order dated 29-4-2003 (Annx. 21) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition, in succinct, are that petitioner, who is a Ranger Grade I, had been transferred from Bhadra to Nohar, vide order dated 3-10- 97, on humantarian ground to lookafter his old parents and family members after sad demise of his wife and elder brother. Again, vide order Annx. 5 dated 11-4-2000, he was transferred to Churu and joined his duties at Rajgarh (district Churu) on 17-7-2000. Vide impugned order Annx. 8 dated 15-6-2002, he has been transferred from Rajgarh to Nohar. He challenged the impugned transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal and the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 25-7-2002 (Annx. 9) stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order Ann. 8 and directed to file a representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which has been rejected vide order Annx. 11 dated 26-8- 2002, perhaps on the false and fabricated complaint filed by one Inder Pal Singh Punia. Petitioner submitted an application before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to inquire into the correctness of the complaint and ultimately joined his duties at Nohar. He again filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned transfer order Annx. 8 dated 15-6-2002 and the order dated 26-8-2002 (Annx. 11) passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest rejecting his representation. THE Tribunal, vide impugned order Ann. 21 dated 35-7-2002, dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Court can interfere with the impugned transfer order only if the transfer order is in contravention of the statutory provisions or had been passed on malafide reasons. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upto the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (1), Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar (2), Union of India vs. N. P. Thomas (3), Chief Manager (Tel.) N. E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (4), State of U. P. vs. Dr. R. N. Prasad (5), Union of India & Ors. vs. Ganesh Dan Singh (6), N. K. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (7), and Abani Kante Ray vs. State of Orissa An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer order/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujrat Electricity Board vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (9), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- " Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. " Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N. E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (supra ).
(3.) IN Union of INdia vs. H. N. Kirtania (10), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- " Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interferred with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide. " Thus, it is clear that Court can interfere with the transfer order only on the grounds of malafides or if the order is found to be in violation of statutory Rules. None of such ground exists in this case. Moreso, if the allegations of malafides are to be alleged, it becomes the duty of the employee to implead the person (s) against whom the allegations are made. (Vide J. M. Banawalikar vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & Ors. (11), State of Bihar & Ors. vs. P. P. Sharma (12), I. K. Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. (13), and All India State Bank Officers Federation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. In Shilpi Bose (supra), the Apex court has held that order of transfer/posting "issued by the competent authority did not violate any of her legal right. " The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his posting at a particular place. The Apex Court further held as under:- " In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer orders which are 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 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 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 conductive to public interest. " ;