Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059343
2023:PHHC:059343
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-5451-CWP-2023
in/and
CWP-5757-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.04.2023
Bhupinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
CM-5451-CWP-2023
1. After hearing the learned counsel representing the applicant
and after going through the contents of the application, the same is
allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number and is taken
on Board for final disposal.
Main case
2. Challenging the correctness of the petitioner's posting by
way of transfer vide order dated 11.03.2022, this writ petition has been
filed. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Senior
Assistant. He has been transferred from the Head Office, Patiala to the
District Language Office, Sangrur. In substance, the petitioner alleges
infringement of the transfer policy. He also refers to an incident which
took place in the meeting held by the Principal Secretary.
3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the petitioner. The transfer of an employee is an
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059343
CM-5451-CWP-2023
in/and 2 2023:PHHC:059343
CWP-5757-2022 (O&M)
element of service. The policy guidelines issued by the State to transfer
the employee are in the nature of guidelines and not enforceable through
a court of law. Such policy does not confer any right in a transferred
employee to challenge the same alleging violation thereof. Reference in
this regard can be made to Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E.
Telecom Circle and Another v. Shri Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee
and Others (1995) 2 SCC 532. In State of U.P. and Others v.
Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Supreme Court while setting
aside the judgment passed by the High Court, observed as under:-
"7. It is too late in the day for any Government
Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a
particular place or position, he should continue in
such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer
of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the
terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential
condition of service in the absence of any specific
indication to the contra, in the law governing or
conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is
shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of
power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act
or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to
do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered
with as a matter of course or routine for any or every
type of grievance sought to be made. Even
administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or
containing transfer policies at best may afford an
opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to
approach their higher authorities for redress but
cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying
the competent authority to transfer a particular
officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is
found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as
the official status is not affected adversely and there is
no infraction of any career prospects such as
seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This
Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059343
CM-5451-CWP-2023
in/and 3 2023:PHHC:059343
CWP-5757-2022 (O&M)
made even in transgression of administrative
guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do
not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as
noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is
made in violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally
be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the
Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate
Authorities over such orders, which could assess the
niceties of the administrative needs and requirements
of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that
Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own
decisions in the matter of transfer for that of
competent authorities of the State and even
allegations of mala fides when made must be such as
to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on
concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on
the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of
conjectures or surmises and except for strong and
convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily
be made with an order of transfer".
4. The petitioner has not impleaded any superior officer by
name. Hence, the allegations of mala fide cannot be looked into. While
exercising the writ jurisdiction, the scope of interference in a writ
petition, relating to the transfer matter, is extremely narrow. Hence, no
ground to issue the writ, as prayed for, is made out.
5. Dismissed.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
26.04.2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059343
3 of 3
