1. In Mohd Masood Ahmad v. State of UP & Ors, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that since the petitioner was on a transferable post, the High Court has rightly dismissed his Writ Petition because transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision and further that interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. Further, in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. P. Perachi, (2011) 12 SCC 137 and in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, (1991) Suppl (2) SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that order of transfer cannot be made to subject of judicial review.
2. State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, III (2004) SLT 210=(2004) 11 SCC 402 followed in
"A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the Government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires"
No comments:
Post a Comment