MADAN, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The case of the petitioner in short is that while working in Group `c' post (Ministerial Cadre), the petitioner was promoted on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as Assistant Personnel Officer for short "apo", which is a group `b' post in the office of Chief Works Manager, Ajmer (WEstern Railway ). It has been contended that service conditions of Group `b' Officers in WEstern Railway is controlled by Headquarter Office of respondent No. 1 i. e. General Manager (WEstern Railways) at Mumbai. The contention of the petitioner is that under the relevant rules, the transfer of a railway servant is permissible provided the competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another provided that except: (i) on account of inefficiency or (ii) misbehaviour or (iii) on his written request.
(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner after his posting at Ajmer Division of the Western Railway, was not allowed to complete the normal tenure of 4 years which is required for any post as per the policy guidelines issued in terms of letter dated 10. 7. 1989 of the Chairman Railway Board. IT was categorically pointed out that after joining w. e. f. 11. 1. 1994 as Assistant Personnel Officer (Stores) he was posted vide order dated 14. 8. 1996 in the office of Divisional Railway Manager. This was changed vide order dated 9. 6. 1998 by which the petitioner was shifted from Divisional Office to Railway Rec-ruitment Board, Ajmer. Again, in October, 1998 the posting of the petitioner was changed from Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer to Workshop as Assistant Personnel Officer (Works) where he joined on 27. 10. 1998 and ultimately vide order dated 10. 3. 1999 the petitioner was transferred from Ajmer to Jaipur and one Shri S. M. Johri (respondent No. 4) was posted at the place of the petitioner i. e. Assistant Personnel Officer (Works) at Ajmer. Apart from above, it has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in his Original Application filed before the learned Tribunal (CAT Bench) at Jaipur wherein he had assailed the impugned-order of transfer dated 10. 3. 1999 by which he was transferred from Ajmer to Jaipur, the petitioner is still waiting the receipt of posting orders from competent Authority. Even on compassionate grounds, his two sons and one daughter who are getting education at Ajmer are scheduled to appear in their annual examinations in October, 1999, their academic career may not be affected adversely as a result of his abrupt transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking note of the fact that as per Exh. 1 which is a Circular dated 10. 7. 1989 issued by the Chairman, Railway Board & Principal Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi wherein, it has been stipulated that posting of officers of Railway both at the Headquarters as well as on Division should be governed by a tenure of minimum 4 years ensuring that no officer remains in the same post for a period longer than 4 years. It has also been stipulated that in the event of particular incumbent being required to remain at a post for longer than this period, it should not be permitted unless prior approval of the Board has been obtained. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner at the bar. Prima-facie, we are of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge his transfer orders since it is always open to the competent authority to direct posting or transfer of any of its' employees from one Department to another or from one station to another if the exigencies of service so demand in public interest and which is not open to challenge, unless some arbitrariness has been spelt out. It is not the case of the petitioner that his transfer has been made in violation of Railway Board's Circular dated 10. 7. 1989 referred to above, since, there is no bar as envisaged under the aforesaid circular to transfer a particular employee in view of exigency of service if they so demand before the expiry of tenure of 4 years. The only safeguard which should be observed by the competent authority in such matters is that where such transfer is directed before the expiry of period of 4 years as specified in Railway Board's circular, prior approval of Ministry of Railways should normally be obtained unless there are ex-ceptional reasons justifying departure which is not the subject-matter at issue in the instant writ petition. Be that as it may, we are of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to assail the impugned-order of his transfer dated 10. 3. 1999. The interim-order dated 16. 3. 1999 (Exh. 3) issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jai-pur by which the impugned-order of transfer dated 10. 3. 1999 was earlier stayed has since already been vacated, we find no justification to interfere with the same. We are fortified in our observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar and others (1), wherein the similar controversy had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. The Apex Court held, as under:- " After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the transfer orders of Primary School teachers. The High Court held that the Dist-rict Education Establishment Committee had no jurisdiction to transfer the Primary School teachers on their request. We find no justification for this conclusion. There is no dispute that the District Education Establishment Committee is competent to transfer Primary School teachers from one place to the other but merely because such transfers were made on the request of teachers, the Committee is not divested of its jurisdiction. The Director of the Primary Education had issued directions that lady teachers posted in distant areas or rural areas may be accommodated to the place of their request to avoid hardship to them. These directions are reasonable, and the District Education Establishment Committee followed the same principles in transferring the appellants on their requests to avoid hardship which was being caused to them. The respondents challenged the validity of the transfers before the High Court on another ground also that Primary School teachers posted in the urban areas were not liable to be transferred to rural areas though the State Government had issued circular on March 30,1984 permitting transfers from urban areas to rural areas. The High Court did not interfere with the orders were without jurisdiction as the same had been made on the appellants' request with a view to accommodate them. We fail to appreciate the reasoning recorded by the High Court. If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the re-quest of the employees concerned. The respondents have continued to be posted at their respective places for the last several years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be transferred from one place to the other. The transfer orders had been issued by the competent au-thority which did not violate any mandatory rule, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders. " The Apex Court further observed that the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is 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 malafides. Since none of the contingencies as referred to above exists in the present case, we find no justification to interfere or to entertain this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already represented to the appropriate authority on 12. 3. 1999 assailing the impugned-order of transfer. We are of the view that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner with regard to appropriate authority deciding the said representation in accordance with law if not so far decided. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. .;