Vinod Kumar Bairwa @APPELLANT@Hash Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Petitioner present in person, is aggrieved of the order dated 23rd March, 2018, transferring him from Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Commission’) to District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaisalmer (for short, ‘District Forum’).

Briefly, the essential skeletal materials are that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV Employee at Jaipur, in the year 1994, and has continued at

the same place i.e. Jaipur, for last 24 years. By impugned order dated 23rd March, 2018, as many as six employees, including the petitioner, have been

transferred.

Petitioner urged that aggrieved of the order of transfer, he instituted an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short,

“Tribunalâ€), which was disposed off on 26th March, 2018, with a direction to the respondent-Commission to consider the matter on his

representation. The representation addressed by the petitioner in consequence thereof, has been declined by the respondent-Commission in a

mechanical manner without application of mind and did not take note of the grievances of the petitioner. On an another appeal instituted before the

Tribunal, that was again been disposed off vide order dated 26th April, 2018, relegating the petitioner again to address a representation which ought to

have been considered sympathetically, in the light of various circulars of the State Government. According to the petitioner, the respondent

Commission was specifically directed to reconsider the matter with reference to low paid employees, who are to be retained at their parent district

while staying the execution transfer order on 25th May, 2018.Â

Heard and considered.

The representation addressed for the second time has again been declined vide impugned order dated 25th May, 2018, which is the subject matter of

the challenge before this Court.

The only grievance put-forth by the petitioner before this Court is that he has a son and four daughters, who are of marriageable age, and therefore,

he ought to have been retained at Jaipur. No other point was raised for consideration of this Court.

By a catena of judgments, it is, now well settled that transfer is an incident of service. Unless transfer is effected in violation of any mandatory

statutory rule or having adverse consequences on the conditions of the service; the same is not to be interfered by the Courts as an Appellate

Authority.

In the case of Gobardhan Lal Vs. State of U.P.: (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed thus:

“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.

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.â€​

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court of the land dealing with the scope and

extent of judicial review, in the matter of transfer of an employee; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order made by

Competent Authority.

In the result, the writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.