- (1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure 3 dated 30.9.92, by which he was transferred. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner, also, filed a stay application but no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner and the transfer order has already been implemented and the petitioner has joined the duties at the place where he was transferred. The other person, who was transferred to the place where the petitioner was working, has, also, joined his duties.
(2.) Since, the transfer order has already been implemented, 1, therefore, do not think it proper to interfere in the order of transfer, passed by the respondents. Transfer is an ordinary incident of service and nobody has a right to remain posted at particular place. Who should be transferred and at what place in the administrative exigency, is a matter to be decided by the competent authority taking into consideration the necessities of the circumstances. The order of transfer can be questioned in the Court and be interfered with by the Court only if the order of transfer has been passed malafide or in violation of statutory provision or condition of service. In the absence of victimization or violation of condition of service, the Courts are not expected to interfere in the matter of transfer. No case of malafides, victimization or violation of statutory provision or condition of service, has been made-out in the present case and as much no interference is called- for.
(3.) In the result, 1 do not find any merit in this merit petition and the same is hereby dismissed.;