1
Writ Appeal No.147/2011
(Himmat Singh vs. State of M.P. & another)
18.02.2011
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
This intra-court appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the
M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the order of the learned Single Judge
passed in W.P. No.1732/2011, dated 25-01-2011 dismissing the
writ petition of the appellant against his order of transfer.
It appears that the appellant was earlier transferred from
Insemination Centre, Sihore to Veternianry Dispensary, Kuhdia,
District-Harda, vide order dated 4-5-2010 being aggrieved by
which he made a representation on 7-5-2010 to the authority
concerned. Consequently, the respondents considering the
representation of the appellant modified the same vide order dated
11-6-2010, a copy whereof is marked as Annexure-P/4 ,
transferring him to Veterinary Dispensary, Nimoda in District-
Sehore itself. Thereafter, the appellant again made a representation
against the aforesaid modified order of transfer considering which
the respondents, by the impugned order dated 4-9-2010, have
withdrawn the order dated 11-6-2010 whereby he had been
transferred within the Sehore district, as a result of which the initial
order dated 7-5-2010 is revived. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
has filed the aforesaid writ petition against the order dated
4-9-2010.
2
Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed on the
petitioner’s representation and, therefore, he has only himself to
blame. The submissions of the petitioner against the impugned
order only relate to violation of the transfer policy which alone
cannot be a ground for interference with the order of transfer. It is
well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which
employee should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate
authority to decide until and unless the transfer is vitiated by
malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the
Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See: Union of
India and Others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993)4 SCC 357]. Similarly in
Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and
another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, once again dealing with the scope of
judicial review in the matter of transfer, Supreme Court reiterated
that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be
interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines
regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same
confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities
for redressal of their grievance. Transfer made contrary to policy
can also not be interfered with.
In the case in hand the appellant has not questioned the order
on the ground of violation of any statutory provision or on the
ground of malafide. It is made clear that in case the petitioner
seeks restoration of the modified order of transfer dated 11-6-2010,
he may approach the authority by filing a representation. It needs
no emphasis to state that the same shall be considered and decided
by the concerned authority expeditiously, in accordance with law.
3
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to differ with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
(S.R.Alam) (R.S.Jha)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
4
5