JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer order, being Notification dated 5th September, 2007 (Annexure-3), on two grounds; firstly that he has been transferred within a short span of slightly over three months and secondly that the transfer order is vitiated by mala fide.
2. By the impugned order, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chatra, has been transferred to the post of Deputy Secretary, Canibet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Petitioner’s case is that earlier he was transferred to Chatra as Additional Collector. He was remained there fill April, 2007. By Notification dated 24th April, 2007, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, zila Parishad, Chotra. How, a? the instance of a Member of Parliament of the Ruling Alliance, the petitioner has been transferred within a short period of just over three months to the post of Deputy Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Jharkhand. He has alleged that the impugned order of transfer is tainted with mala fide.
4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the transfer order preceded by a news item published in the local daily newspaper ‘DAINIK JAGRAN’ in its edition dated on 28th April, 2007 reporting that the local Member of Parliament was unhappy on the transfer of the then Deputy Development Commissioner. The said news item gives sufficient hint that the petitioner’s transfer has been made at the behest of the said Member of Parliament. Learned Counsel submitted that the transfer of a Government Employee/Officer cannot be made at the sweet will of the public representatives contrary to the prescribed rules/ procedure. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Md. Khurshid Alarm Ansari v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2000(2) PLJR 139 and Mary Margaret Raphail v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2000(2) PLJR 679.
5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred within less than four months from the date of his earlier posting and as such, the impugned transfer order is wholly arbitrary, premature, unfair and contrary to the rules. He relied on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Gurudeo Prasad Mandal v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1996(2) PLJR 66 and Baldeo Choudhary v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2000(1) PLJR 914.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Respondents, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner’s transfer has been made due to administrative exigency and in public interest. The Government has got such power to post the Government Employee/Officer at suitable place in administrative, exigency. The petitioner was transferred from Godda and was posted as Additional Collector, Chatra by Notification No. 1022 dated 27th February, 2004. He was made Deputy Development Commissioner at the same place by Notification dated 24th April, 2007 and he remained at Chatra for more than three years.
7. It has been stated that the Supreme Court, in Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. , has held that the Court should not interfere with such transfer orders, which are made in public interest and for administrative reason, unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory /statutory rule or on the around of mala fide,
8. It has been stated that the petitioner has got remedy to file representation before the higher authority of the department, if he has any grievance, but he has rushed to this Court and filed this writ petition, though there is no ground for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Respondent No. 3 has also filed a counter affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has been transferred from Chatra after a period of more than three and half years of his posting at that place. He was transferred to Chatra and was posted as the Additional Collector. He was made Deputy Development Commissioner at the same place. He has no right to claim for his continuation at Chatra for indefinite period. It has been stated that the Respondent No. 3 has already joined as Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra and he has been discharging his duties as such. The impugned transfer order has already been given effect to. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is legal and proper.
10. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, one after the other, emphatically argued that the transfer of the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 has not been made at the behest of any Member of Legislative Assembly or Member of Parliament. The news item, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has got no relevance with the petitioner or with the Respondent No. 3. The Member of Parliament was said to be aggrieved by the transfer of the then Deputy Development Commissioner, not the petitioner, who was then Additional Collector, Chatra. The petitioner remained at Chatra for more than three and half years and the ground of challenge to the impugned transfer order by the petitioner that he has been transferred from Chatra within a short span of time i.e. three months is wholly baseless.
11. Learned Counsel submitted that the transfer is not only an incidence of service but is a condition of service as well, No government servant or-employee has got any legal right to, be posted for ever at any one place or at the place of his choice and a transfer made on administrative exigency or in public interest does not give rise to any cause or furnish any ground for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Siya Ram and Anr. and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal .
12. Learned Counsel cited decision of the Patna High Court in Dharam Deo Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2002(4) PLJR 703 and submitted that the petitioner has alleged mala fide against the Member of Parliament, but he has not made him party in the writ petition. It is a settled principle of law that if mala fide is alleged against an authority/person, such person is a necessary party. Further, there is nothing on the record to show that the Respondent No. 3 approached the Member of Parliament or at his instance, the Member of Parliament has exerted any influence for accommodating the Respondent No. 3. There is no such pleading of the petitioner on record. The petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order on disputed facts and by making general allegation. The disputed facts cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ petition.
13. I have considered the facts and materials brought on record as well as submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. I have also carefully examined the judicial rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. From the facts, appearing on record, it is evident that earlier the petitioner was posted as Additional Collector, Chalra by Memo No. 1022 dated 27th February, 2004. He was, thereafter, made Deputy Development Commissioner of the same place in April, 2007. The petitioner was initially posted at Chatra as Additional Collector and thereafter as Deputy Development Commissioner and he remained there for more than three years. The ground that the petitioner has boon transferred at the behest of the Member of Parliament is not supported by any cogent material. Annexure-2, which has been brought on record in support of the said allegation, has got no relevance. Even in the news item, there is no allegation that the petitioner’s transfer has been made at the instance of the Member of Parliament. There is nothing on record to show any nexus of the impugned transfer order with Annexure-2.
14. In State of U.P. and Anr. v. Siya Ram and Anr. (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that no government servant or employee has any legal right to be posted at any one place for ever or at the place of his choice. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that where disputed question of facts have been raised for challenging the transfer order, the High Court cannot interfere with the same.
15. Since there is no cogent material, constituting any ground of mala fide or any document, to show the recommendation of the concerned Member of Parliament for the petitioner’s transfer, there is no relevance of the decisions, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to the facts of the instant case.
16. In view of the above, I do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner dated 5th September, 2007. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.