In case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the authority concerned is contrary to the Government Order dated 6.5.2025. It is also submitted that as per instructions received by the State, there is no reason assigned for passing the impugned order as given in paragraph no. 3 of the said instructions, which is quoted hereinbelow : "3 राजकीय औ्ቕोगि(cid:12)क ्ቚशि(cid:15)्ቌण संस्थान, बुलन्द(cid:15)हर में अनुभवी कम#चारिरयों की कमी एवं काय# की अधि)कता के दृगि-(cid:12)त गिनदे(cid:15)ालय के प्ቔ संख्या - आई/184150/2025, गिदनांक-15.06.2025 ्ቛारा ्ቦी अगिमत कुमार, वरिर्቗ सहायक का स्थानान्तरण गिनरस्त गिकया (cid:12)या है।"

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19.5.2025 the Director-Training & Employment, UP, Lucknow (for short the Director) issued a circular calling upon the subordinate officers to forward the applications of employees who are desirous to transfer, on or before 25.5.2025 alongwith their applications. In pursuance of the said circular, the petitioner had submitted an application before the Director seeking transfer on account of personal reasons to Government Industrial Training Institute, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The said application has also been submitted to the Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr for transfer to Government Industrial Training Institute, Ghaziabad or Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. The Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr forwarded the application dated 20.5.2025 of the petitioner to the Director with his covering letter dated 20.5.2025.

6. On 14.6.2025, an order was passed by the Director sanctioning transfer of 10 of clerical employees on their request. In the said order, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 1 sanctioning his transfer to Government Industrial Training Institute, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar on his personal request.

7. It is submitted that before the petitioner could be relieved from Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr in pursuance of the order dated 14.6.2025, another order dated 14/15.6.2025 has been passed cancelling the transfer order dated 14.6.2025 of the petitioner without assigning any reason.

8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the transfer policy of the State itself permits transfer on personal grounds and it was in pursuance thereto, the Director had sought applications from the persons desirous to transfer from their present place of posting. There are genuine grounds of the petitioner for seeking transfer from district Bulandshahr to Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. After considering the grounds of the petitioner for seeking transfer, the Director has sanctioned the transfer and issued a transfer list in which the petitioner was at serial no. 1, but by the impugned order dated 15.6.2025, his transfer was cancelled arbitrarily without assigning any reason and contrary to the Government order and orders, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in passing the impugned order while cancelling the transfer of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the matter of transfer scope of judicial review is very limited until said transfer is in violation of statutory provisions or due mala fide reasons. It is further submitted that it is not open to the Court to interfere with the orders of transfer and cancellation of transfer order on post which is transferable, in absence of any malafide reasons or infarction of any professed norms if such order is not detrimental.

10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of malafide on part of authority while passing cancellation of transfer. It is submitted that the mala fide is of two grounds i.e. one malice in fact and second malice in law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there are no allegations about any malice on part of the authority concerned. 2 Therefore, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is to be rejected.

11. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. I wish to appreciate the law and principles laid down in the matter of transfer persuading judicial review.

12. In case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject…...”

13. In case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98, the Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset.” “23….. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads, subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” “24….Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by court should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill advised.”

14. In case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors; (2013) 1 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person 3 concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned…….:

15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decision of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted.

16. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. On examining facts of the present case, it is apparent that on request made by the petitioner, transfer order dated 14.6.2025 was passed and the same was cancelled by subsequent order dated 15.6.2025 due to scarcity of the experienced staffs at Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed due to administrative exigency. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, no reason has been assigned by the authority concerned. Order dated 15.6.2025 has been passed in public interest after due application of mind and without any mala-fide intention. Any government order are only guidelines but not binding as any statutory provision.

18. In the instant case, it is not a case of the petitioner that impugned order passed is with mala-fide intention and also no averments made regarding violation of statutory provisions.

19. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid legal principles and facts in hand, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 S.K.S. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the authority concerned is contrary to the Government Order dated 6.5.2025. It is also submitted that as per instructions received by the State, there is no reason assigned for passing the impugned order as given in paragraph no. 3 of the said instructions, which is quoted hereinbelow : "3 राजकीय औ्ቕोगि(cid:12)क ्ቚशि(cid:15)्ቌण संस्थान, बुलन्द(cid:15)हर में अनुभवी कम#चारिरयों की कमी एवं काय# की अधि)कता के दृगि-(cid:12)त गिनदे(cid:15)ालय के प्ቔ संख्या - आई/184150/2025, गिदनांक-15.06.2025 ्ቛारा ्ቦी अगिमत कुमार, वरिर्቗ सहायक का स्थानान्तरण गिनरस्त गिकया (cid:12)या है।"

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19.5.2025 the Director-Training & Employment, UP, Lucknow (for short the Director) issued a circular calling upon the subordinate officers to forward the applications of employees who are desirous to transfer, on or before 25.5.2025 alongwith their applications. In pursuance of the said circular, the petitioner had submitted an application before the Director seeking transfer on account of personal reasons to Government Industrial Training Institute, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The said application has also been submitted to the Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr for transfer to Government Industrial Training Institute, Ghaziabad or Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. The Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr forwarded the application dated 20.5.2025 of the petitioner to the Director with his covering letter dated 20.5.2025.

6. On 14.6.2025, an order was passed by the Director sanctioning transfer of 10 of clerical employees on their request. In the said order, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 1 sanctioning his transfer to Government Industrial Training Institute, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar on his personal request.

7. It is submitted that before the petitioner could be relieved from Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr in pursuance of the order dated 14.6.2025, another order dated 14/15.6.2025 has been passed cancelling the transfer order dated 14.6.2025 of the petitioner without assigning any reason.

8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the transfer policy of the State itself permits transfer on personal grounds and it was in pursuance thereto, the Director had sought applications from the persons desirous to transfer from their present place of posting. There are genuine grounds of the petitioner for seeking transfer from district Bulandshahr to Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. After considering the grounds of the petitioner for seeking transfer, the Director has sanctioned the transfer and issued a transfer list in which the petitioner was at serial no. 1, but by the impugned order dated 15.6.2025, his transfer was cancelled arbitrarily without assigning any reason and contrary to the Government order and orders, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in passing the impugned order while cancelling the transfer of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the matter of transfer scope of judicial review is very limited until said transfer is in violation of statutory provisions or due mala fide reasons. It is further submitted that it is not open to the Court to interfere with the orders of transfer and cancellation of transfer order on post which is transferable, in absence of any malafide reasons or infarction of any professed norms if such order is not detrimental.

10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of malafide on part of authority while passing cancellation of transfer. It is submitted that the mala fide is of two grounds i.e. one malice in fact and second malice in law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there are no allegations about any malice on part of the authority concerned. 2 Therefore, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is to be rejected.

11. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. I wish to appreciate the law and principles laid down in the matter of transfer persuading judicial review.

12. In case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject…...”

13. In case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98, the Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset.” “23….. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads, subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” “24….Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by court should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill advised.”

14. In case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors; (2013) 1 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person 3 concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned…….:

15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decision of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted.

16. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. On examining facts of the present case, it is apparent that on request made by the petitioner, transfer order dated 14.6.2025 was passed and the same was cancelled by subsequent order dated 15.6.2025 due to scarcity of the experienced staffs at Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed due to administrative exigency. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, no reason has been assigned by the authority concerned. Order dated 15.6.2025 has been passed in public interest after due application of mind and without any mala-fide intention. Any government order are only guidelines but not binding as any statutory provision.

18. In the instant case, it is not a case of the petitioner that impugned order passed is with mala-fide intention and also no averments made regarding violation of statutory provisions.

19. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid legal principles and facts in hand, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 S.K.S. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4