Srinagar: An employee holding a transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period, the High Court has said.
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Rashid Ali Dar while dismissing a petition from one Mohammad Maqbool Shah remarked that courts including the Supreme Court have time and again held that transfer was an exigency of service and a prerogative of the employer to see as to at what place the services of an employee can be best utilized in the larger public interest.
“It is well settled legal position that Government instructions are not having statutory force. It is also settled in law that Executive instructions/Government orders are subject to statutory rules. Executive instructions cannot supplement the rules,” the court said, while referencing to a service writ petition disposed off in August 2015, which has dealt with enforcement of the executive instructions/government orders.
The petitioner had challenged the transfer of his posting place as “premature”.
Shah stated that he was transferred to his present place of posting in January 2019, and only after eight months, he was again transferred, “on the ground of smooth functioning and public interest”.
The appellant also contended he was going to retire after six months, and as such, “in the interest of justice demands that he may be allowed to retire from his present place”, so that he would not suffer because he had already submitted the necessary documents for preparing his pension book.

NUSRAT SIDIQ