Dr. J. Sukumar, M.S. vs The Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services and The Joint Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare

K. Chandru, J.—The order challenged in the Writ Petition is one of transfer.

It is stated in the order dated 09.11.2005 that it is done on the administrative ground. It is contended that the impugned order of transfer was

illegal on the ground that it is done during non-transferable period and the Government guidelines have not been followed. He is a heart patient and

he cannot have two establishments just for a month. There are juniors to the petitioner in the same station.

I have heard the arguments of Mr. L.K. Arjun Senthil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Chellammal, learned Special

Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records. A counter affidavit dated Nil (January 2006) has been filed by

the first respondent justifying the transfer order.

The grounds raised by the petitioner are not valid and it does not stand to scrutiny by this Court. The said order was effected to have emergency

relief to flood victims in Nagapattinam. If medical services are not provided to needy on emergency basis, there is no useful purpose for running the

medical services by the State. Right to medical relief is a fundamental right of a citizen. The petitioner, being a member of the State service, is liable

to be posted at any place even on a short notice.

Since the transfer was made on administrative grounds, the Court cannot go behind the said reason so long as the power has been exercised

properly by the authorities. Even following of the guidelines are not required when transfer is made on administrative grounds.

As admittedly, since the petitioner belongs to a State Service created under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, he is entitled to serve

wherever a posting is given to him. Therefore, the basic question is whether the petitioner is entitled to resist an order of transfer or in the

alternative, through the Court, can get the posting to a particular place in the absence of Rules. Under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India, in a State Service, transfer is an incidence of service of any service personnel and unless the transfer is made on the ground of

mala fide or for extraneous reasons, the Court cannot go behind the power of the authorities in effecting transfer.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another,

wherein in paragraph 5, it was observed as follows:

Para 5: The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to

whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted

forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable

posts from one place to other is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary to in public interest and efficiency in the public

administrative. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions

prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were

appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of

administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v.

Shri Bhagwan.

Further, the Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, in paragraph 7, observed as

follows:

Para 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 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.

In the absence of any valid legal grounds and factual pleadings regarding mala fides, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly,

dismissed. No costs.