Gujarat High Court
Jayantilal Purshottamdas Panchal vs Commissioner Of Motor Transport, ... on 17 February, 1996
Author: S.K. Keshote
Bench: S.K. Keshote
ORDER S.K. Keshote, J.
1. The challenge is made by the petitioner who is holding the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles in the Road Transport Department of the District of Gujarat, in this writ petition, to the order dated 12.2.1996 under which he was ordered to be transferred from Songadh to Rajkot. The order has been challenged only on the ground that in making thereof the respondent has violated the policies laid down by the Government for transfer of the employees. It is not in dispute that the transfer policies, the reference of which has been made by the Counsel for the petitioner are administrative. The violation of the transfer policies made by the respondent in making of the transfer of the petitioner does not give any legally enforceable right to the petitioner. On this ground this Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. Reference in this respect may be have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S. L. Abbas 1993 II CLR 168. It has next been contended that the petitioner is a heart patient and is undergoing treatment at Surat with Dr. Saiyed and as such he should not be transferred out of Songadh. Over and above, the petitioner has mother aged 70 years who is a resident of Surat and who has also suffered heart attack and she is being treated at Surat. It has further been stated that the petitioner has a wife and two children and his daughter is in Std. XII having examinations from 18.3.1996. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the peculiar circumstances also, the petitioner ought not to have been transferred. True, the transfer may cause inconvenience or some personal difficulties. The petitioner may have heart ailment but on this ground this Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. Every employee has aged and ailing parents and school going children, but transfer being an incident of service an employee who pots for Government service has to face these difficulties. It is for the department concerned to consider all these aspects but not for this Court sitting under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer of public servants because it is entirely for the employer to decide when where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present place of posting. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S. L. Abbas 1993 II CLR 168 (supra), this Court can interfere with the order of transfer only when it is vitiated with malafides and/or made in violation of some statutory rules, regulation etc. which is not the case of the petitioner here. The ground that it is a midterm transfer in also not of any relevance for this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner has some personal difficulties at Rajkot may be because of his ailment or the ailment of his mother, the proper course would have been to approach the authorities rather than to file petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly, when the petitioner has not challenged the order of transfer on the ground of malafides or violation of statutory provisions in making thereof. If such a representation is made, the authority has to consider the same as it comes out from the decision of the apex court in the case of Union of India v. S. L. Abbas 1993 II CLR 168 (supra). In the result this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
2. Petition dismissed.