JUDGMENT
R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the transfer order dated 18.6.1996 Anx. 18 to the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted before me that there is no allegation of malafide against the transferring authority.
3. It is vehemently argued before me that the wife of the petitioner is posted at sheoganj, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be posted at the same place. According to Shri Srimali earlief vide order dated 6.12.95 Anx. 17 to the writ petition his transfer order was modified and he was transferred at Sheoganj where his wife is working.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner vide impugned order Anx. 18 dated 18.6.96 he has been again transferred from Sheoganj to Reodar without assigning any reason.
5. In my considered opinion transfer is an incidence of service and administrative exigencies can be ascertained only by the transferring authority not by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. There are very limited scope of interference in case of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on those limited grounds for interference in case of transfer the present writ petition is not entertainable at this stage, therefore, it is hereby dismissed with a direction that if a representation is made by the petitioner then it shall be considered by the transferring authority expeditiously keeping in view that living of the husband and wife together if both of them are employed as far as possible is an essential ingredient of dignified life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to life means livable life by husband and wife even if they are in service of State or its instrumentality and they cannot be deprived of their livable life at the whim and fancy of transferring authority without following a fair procedure.
7. Next question which arises for consideration would be what should be the fair procedure which transferring authority should follow in such cases of transfer of husband and wife depriving them from a livable life. In my humble opinion the procedure should be reasonable and must conform to the norms of justice and fair play. To my mind before depriving husband and wife from livable life by way of transferring them, every transferring authority must record reasons in writing as to why it is not possible to allow husband and wife to work at one place. This procedure evolved by this Court would meet the requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India according to which no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
8. It is true that assessment of possibility to keep husband and wife together at one place is within the exclusion domain of transferring authority but in order to make such transfer order objective the transferring authority is under legal obligation to record reasons as to why it is not possible to keep husband and wife at one place.
9. At the time of deciding the representation of the petitioner it should also be kept in view by the authority that the State Government has taken a policy decision that as far as possible husband and wife should be allowed to work together. In view of the policy decision taken by the State Government I hereby direct the transferring authority to record reasons as to why it is not possible to keep husband and wife together at one place i.e. sheoganjwhile deciding the representation.
10. Till representation of the petitioner is decided the respondents are hereby restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner at Sheoganj in pursuance of order dated 6.12.95 (Anx. 17) and the impugned order dated 18.6.96 Anx. 18 to the writ petition shall be kept in abeyance. After decision of the representation of the petitioner the stay order shall automatically come to an end without reference to the Bench.
11. With these observations the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.