Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent 1, while working as a teacher in Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (AOC) Jabalpur, M.P questioned his transfer to J&K. Smt Sushila Pandey, Respondent 5 in the present appeal was transferred to Jabalpur in place of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short “Tribunal”). The transfer order was mainly assailed on the ground of alleged mala fides and to be a punitive transfer issued in colourable exercise of power. The Tribunal noticed that the allegations of mala fides were not established and the transfer was not vitiated on any score. Plea of the present Respondent 1 that he and wife should be posted at same place was also held to be not acceptable. It was observed that the situation where the husband and the wife can be kept together would always depend upon the availability of vacancies and administrative exigencies. It was noted that present Respondent 1 and his wife had worked together for nearly 17 years at a particular place. It was noticed that Respondent 5 had worked in J&K for about 15 years and she was being given a posting to come back to M.P i.e to her original place of posting. The original application was dismissed. The order of dismissal was challenged before the High Court of M.P at Jabalpur. The High Court noted that there was no reason to disturb the transfer of the 5th respondent and also held that there was no illegality in the order of transfer so far as Respondent 1 is concerned. After having come to such a conclusion, the High Court gave a direction that present Respondent 1 shall be given a posting in the State of M.P It is this part of the direction given by the High Court which is assailed by the appellant Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. There was an interim order of stay passed by this Court on 19-3-2004 so far as the order of the High Court is concerned.
4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169, (1996) 32 ATC 107. Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the court cannot interfere with it (see Union of India v. S.L Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, (1993) 25 ATC 844, AIR 1993 SC 2444). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath (2004) 4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows:
“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 another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. 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 the 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 Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574.”
5. In the present case, the Tribunal categorically came to hold that mala fides were not involved and the High Court did not disturb that finding. That being so, the High Court's further direction that Respondent 1 shall be posted somewhere in M.P is clearly not sustainable. No reason has been indicated to justify the direction. That part of the order of the High Court is vacated. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.