Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is contended by the petitioner that the normal practice, followed in the matters of transfer, is that an employee is normally transferred after a period of three years and that too before the beginning of rainy season or academic session. This position is not disputed by respondents. This period of 3 years is prescribed so as not to unsettle an employee and his family every now and then. Both these guidelines are therefore obviously in the interest of Administration. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in some cases an employee is retained at the same station for several years, obviously if he has a Godfather and in some cases employees are shunted out every now and then if they have no Godfathers. The learned counsel has gone to the extent of contending that there are several Government servants in Bombay who are never transferred in the whole of their service career. They carry out their duties of implementing various welfare schedules, in the remote villages, by sitting in ivory towers of Secretariat like their predecessors, the British bureaucrats. They are prone to pressures and political influences and are issuing such orders in mala fide and colourable exercise of power to gain favours or to save their skin. They are not conversant with the plight of a person who is transferred mid-term or frequently. There are many officers who are never transferred much less to mofussil places. Thus the policy of transfer is being used merely to harass those employees who have no Godfathers or pulls at the higher level. This criticism is far fetched and has no foundation in the record before us, therefore we are not impressed by it. However, so far as the case in hand is concerned, we are satisfied that the midterm transfer of the petitioner was effected only to accommodate Dr. Patil respondent No. 4 and was therefore wholly mala fide. Therefore we have no other alternative but to quash the impugned order of transfer dated 23rd of September, 1983. We do not think the we are hoping too much in asking the Government to adhere to its guidelines and not to exercise the power mala fide.