High Court

Appellant :- Khushnood Husain Leading Fireman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereby his representation to be transferred from Sambhal to Rampur has been rejected. Learned Single Judge has noticed the appellant's case as per which he was entitled to be posted to a district of his liking in terms of the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024. The reason assigned for denying relief to appellant is the fact that transfer is an incidence of service and mere violation of transfer policy ipso facto may not lead to issuance of a writ, particularly when no mala fide is otherwise alleged and no violation of the statute is shown.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that this is not a case of challenge to the transfer order rather the appellant wants enforcement of the transfer policy itself, which permits an employee to be posted in a district of his choice if he is left with less than two years of service. Clause 5 (v) of the Transfer Police is relied upon which reads as under : वरर मम ससववननववत हहनस ववलस सममह 'ग' "v. 02 एवव सममह 'क' मम ततनवत करनस पर यथवसमभव नवचवर नकयव जवय। इसकस जनपद मम उसकक ततनवतत अवलध कह सवजवन मम न ललयव जवयस। " ख कस कवनमरकक कह उनकस गवह जनपद कह छहडतस हहए, कस कवनमरकक कह उनकस गवह जनपद इचचछत जनपद ललयस पमवर मम उस मणडल / एवव 'घ' एवव '

3. Claim of the appellant is opposed by the learned State Counsel who points out that the appellant has already remained at Rampur for nearly 19 years in the the past and, therefore, it would not be proper to transfer him to the same district.

4. So far as the matter of transfer is concerned, it is usually a matter of administrative exigency. A government servant holding a transferable post has no right to claim posting to a particular place. The transfer policy of the State cannot be read as a statute nor its provisions can be enforced as such. Even otherwise, we find that the transfer policy merely states that as far as possible the candidate be accommodated at a place of his choice two years prior to his retirement. Such consideration can only be in terms of larger administrative exigency. If a person has already remained posted in a district for nearly 19 years and the authorities are not inclined to transfer him to the same district, it cannot be said that the action of the State is arbitrary. Law is otherwise settled that in matters of transfer, interference would not be as matter of routine and unless it is shown to violate any statute or is accused of mala fide, the interference by the Court would be minimal. We are supported in our view by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, wherein the Apex Court relying upon the decisions in Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Union of India and another vs. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 has held as under : "13. In view of the stand taken by the Government and in absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA. In our view the Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge."

5. Similar views are expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402. The relevance of transfer policy, in such matters is also examined in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is reproduced hereinafter : "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." (emphasis supplied by us)

6. In such circumstances, the rejection of appellant's plea merits no interference.

7. Dismissal of special appeal, however, will not prevent the appellant from seeking transfer to any other district, other than Rampur, which shall be accorded consideration in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025/DKS

Appellant :- Khushnood Husain Leading Fireman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereby his representation to be transferred from Sambhal to Rampur has been rejected. Learned Single Judge has noticed the appellant's case as per which he was entitled to be posted to a district of his liking in terms of the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024. The reason assigned for denying relief to appellant is the fact that transfer is an incidence of service and mere violation of transfer policy ipso facto may not lead to issuance of a writ, particularly when no mala fide is otherwise alleged and no violation of the statute is shown.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that this is not a case of challenge to the transfer order rather the appellant wants enforcement of the transfer policy itself, which permits an employee to be posted in a district of his choice if he is left with less than two years of service. Clause 5 (v) of the Transfer Police is relied upon which reads as under : वरर मम ससववननववत हहनस ववलस सममह 'ग' "v. 02 एवव सममह 'क' मम ततनवत करनस पर यथवसमभव नवचवर नकयव जवय। इसकस जनपद मम उसकक ततनवतत अवलध कह सवजवन मम न ललयव जवयस। " ख कस कवनमरकक कह उनकस गवह जनपद कह छहडतस हहए, कस कवनमरकक कह उनकस गवह जनपद इचचछत जनपद ललयस पमवर मम उस मणडल / एवव 'घ' एवव '

3. Claim of the appellant is opposed by the learned State Counsel who points out that the appellant has already remained at Rampur for nearly 19 years in the the past and, therefore, it would not be proper to transfer him to the same district.

4. So far as the matter of transfer is concerned, it is usually a matter of administrative exigency. A government servant holding a transferable post has no right to claim posting to a particular place. The transfer policy of the State cannot be read as a statute nor its provisions can be enforced as such. Even otherwise, we find that the transfer policy merely states that as far as possible the candidate be accommodated at a place of his choice two years prior to his retirement. Such consideration can only be in terms of larger administrative exigency. If a person has already remained posted in a district for nearly 19 years and the authorities are not inclined to transfer him to the same district, it cannot be said that the action of the State is arbitrary. Law is otherwise settled that in matters of transfer, interference would not be as matter of routine and unless it is shown to violate any statute or is accused of mala fide, the interference by the Court would be minimal. We are supported in our view by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, wherein the Apex Court relying upon the decisions in Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Union of India and another vs. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 has held as under : "13. In view of the stand taken by the Government and in absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA. In our view the Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge."

5. Similar views are expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402. The relevance of transfer policy, in such matters is also examined in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is reproduced hereinafter : "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." (emphasis supplied by us)

6. In such circumstances, the rejection of appellant's plea merits no interference.

7. Dismissal of special appeal, however, will not prevent the appellant from seeking transfer to any other district, other than Rampur, which shall be accorded consideration in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025/DKS