High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.06.2025 whereby petitioner posted as Revenue Inspector in Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow has been transferred to District Unnao. Also under challenge is the order dated 11.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that earlier the transfer order dated 14.06.2025 had been challenged in Writ A No.6890 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2025 granting liberty to authority concerned to consider and decide petitioner's representation. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.06.2025 specifically taking three grounds raised therein but the same have not been adverted to in the order dated 11.07.2025 rejecting the representation.

4. Learned counsel has adverted to the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, particularly paragraph 3(v) to indicate that transfers are required to be effected in terms of Government Order dated 13.05.2022 and the aforesaid Government Order of 2022 specifically provides that with regard to Group C employees, transfer orders are required to be passed once they complete three years' in the particular region and since petitioner has completed only two years and seven month of his tenure, there was no requirement for his transfer prior to three years.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the U. P. (Rajasva Subordinate Revenue Executive Nirikshak), Service Rules 2017, particularly Rule 4(vi) that the Commissioner and Secretary are Head of Department of the said cadre. He has also adverted to Rule 13(2) of the aforesaid Rules to submit that it is only the Commissioner of the Division who is authorized to effect transfer outside the District. He has therefore submitted that since impugned order dated 14.06.2025 has been passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), the same is in violation of the said Rules. Learned counsel has also adverted to paragraph 5 (1) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 to submit that since as per Rules, it is the Commissioner who is authorized to effect transfers, the same can be done only after approval by Higher Authority, which would be the Board of Revenue and since no such approval has been accorded, the transfer order is bad in law.

6. It has also been submitted that in terms of paragraph 3(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, with regard to Group C employees, it is only the Head of Department which is authorized to grant approval and has thereafter adverted to the Rules of 2017 to submit that it is the Board of Revenue under Rule 4(vi) which is so authorized.

7. It has also been submitted that in terms of letter dated 02.06.2025 issued by the Commissioner, list of employees requiring transfer was to be submitted by District Magistrate and petitioner's name does not feature in the said list due to which also he was not required to be transferred.

8. Learned counsel submits that once procedure has been clearly indicated in Government Orders and Circulars, they are required to be followed by the opposite parties even though they may be in the nature of guidelines. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the cases of A. L. Kalra versus Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. reported in (1984)3 Supreme Court Cases 316, Jitendra Singh versus State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Appeal No.564 of 2024 and Priyank Misra versus State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Transport Government Lucknow And 7 Ors. passed in Writ A No.6956 of 2025.

9. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although all the grounds raised by petitioner in his representation may not have been considered but the basic premise remains that petitioner does not have any vested right to continue to be posted in particular District. It is also submitted that the Government Order dated 13.05.2022 does not prescribe any prohibition that a person who has not completed three years of service in a particular region cannot be transferred and only prescribed the condition that any person who has completed three years of service in a particular place is compulsorily required to be transferred. He has also submitted that the impugned order indicates that it has been passed in pursuance of approval granted by the Commissioner and the impugned order is in fact the Additional information supplied by Commissioner and therefore conditions for any transfer order having been passed by the Commissioner stands satisfied. It is therefore submitted that none of the conditions indicated in the Government Orders and Circulars have been violated since there is no specific condition that if petitioner's name does not feature in the list of District Magistrates, he cannot be transferred. It is submitted that even otherwise petitioner has been transferred only to the adjoining District of Unnao.

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has submitted a representation in pursuance of directions issued by this Court but the three grounds raised by petitioner in his representation have not been adverted to in totality.

11. So far as the ground of petitioner being transferred prior to three years' of service in a particular place is concerned, learned counsel had adverted to the Government Order dated 13.05.2022. However the aforesaid Government Order does not prescribe any prohibition for transfer to be effected of a Group C employee prior to completion of three years' of service in a particular place. The condition indicated is in fact to the contrary that any person who has completed three years' of service in a particular place is compulsorily required to be transferred.

12. The second ground taken with regard to Commissioner having not passed impugned order, it is evident from a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 that it has been passed stating it having been passed in pursuance of approval granted by the Commissioner vide order dated 14.06.2025. Apparently, the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 is merely a communication of the order passed by Commissioner with regard to petitioner's transfer. The ground also therefore fails.

13. It has further been submitted that in terms of paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, a transfer order would be effected only after approval being granted by the Competent Authority. It is evident from the material on record and as per Rules of 2017 that the Divisional Commissioner is the Competent Authority for effecting transfers outside the District. In this case it has already been observed herein above that it is the Divisional Commissioner who has passed the order dated 14.06.2025 which was communicated by the Additional Commissioner. The paragraph 5(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 clearly indicates that transfers can be effected at any time on administrative grounds and approval is required to be taken in terms of requirements of the Government Order itself.

14. A perusal of the Government Order however does not indicate any such direction or provision for requirement of approval by Higher Authority then the Divisional Commissioner for purposes of transfer of petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector.

15. The letter dated 02.06.2025 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner to the effect that his name was not included in the list submitted by District Magistrate also does not hold good ground in view of the fact that the said letter clearly prescribes for a list to be prepared for those personnel who require their transfer on a voluntary basis. Obviously since petitioner had not given any such option for voluntary posting, his name was not included in the said list.

16. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be inapplicable since there does not appear to be any violation of any Government Order or Circular of the Department.

17. It is also to be noticed that petitioner has been transferred in the adjoining District of Unnao and not to a distant place.

18. So far as submission of learned counsel pertaining to paragraph 3(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 is concerned that transfer of Group C Employees can be effected only with the approval of Head of Department, it is evident from a perusal of Rule 4(vi) of the Rules of 2017 that it is the Commissioner and Secretary who is the Head of Department for the Cadre of Rajasva Nirikshak. In the present case, it is evident that since impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner as communicated by Additional Commissioner, there is no violation of the aforesaid.

19. In view of aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any no good ground to grant indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.06.2025 whereby petitioner posted as Revenue Inspector in Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow has been transferred to District Unnao. Also under challenge is the order dated 11.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that earlier the transfer order dated 14.06.2025 had been challenged in Writ A No.6890 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2025 granting liberty to authority concerned to consider and decide petitioner's representation. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.06.2025 specifically taking three grounds raised therein but the same have not been adverted to in the order dated 11.07.2025 rejecting the representation.

4. Learned counsel has adverted to the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, particularly paragraph 3(v) to indicate that transfers are required to be effected in terms of Government Order dated 13.05.2022 and the aforesaid Government Order of 2022 specifically provides that with regard to Group C employees, transfer orders are required to be passed once they complete three years' in the particular region and since petitioner has completed only two years and seven month of his tenure, there was no requirement for his transfer prior to three years.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the U. P. (Rajasva Subordinate Revenue Executive Nirikshak), Service Rules 2017, particularly Rule 4(vi) that the Commissioner and Secretary are Head of Department of the said cadre. He has also adverted to Rule 13(2) of the aforesaid Rules to submit that it is only the Commissioner of the Division who is authorized to effect transfer outside the District. He has therefore submitted that since impugned order dated 14.06.2025 has been passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), the same is in violation of the said Rules. Learned counsel has also adverted to paragraph 5 (1) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 to submit that since as per Rules, it is the Commissioner who is authorized to effect transfers, the same can be done only after approval by Higher Authority, which would be the Board of Revenue and since no such approval has been accorded, the transfer order is bad in law.

6. It has also been submitted that in terms of paragraph 3(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, with regard to Group C employees, it is only the Head of Department which is authorized to grant approval and has thereafter adverted to the Rules of 2017 to submit that it is the Board of Revenue under Rule 4(vi) which is so authorized.

7. It has also been submitted that in terms of letter dated 02.06.2025 issued by the Commissioner, list of employees requiring transfer was to be submitted by District Magistrate and petitioner's name does not feature in the said list due to which also he was not required to be transferred.

8. Learned counsel submits that once procedure has been clearly indicated in Government Orders and Circulars, they are required to be followed by the opposite parties even though they may be in the nature of guidelines. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the cases of A. L. Kalra versus Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. reported in (1984)3 Supreme Court Cases 316, Jitendra Singh versus State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Appeal No.564 of 2024 and Priyank Misra versus State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Transport Government Lucknow And 7 Ors. passed in Writ A No.6956 of 2025.

9. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although all the grounds raised by petitioner in his representation may not have been considered but the basic premise remains that petitioner does not have any vested right to continue to be posted in particular District. It is also submitted that the Government Order dated 13.05.2022 does not prescribe any prohibition that a person who has not completed three years of service in a particular region cannot be transferred and only prescribed the condition that any person who has completed three years of service in a particular place is compulsorily required to be transferred. He has also submitted that the impugned order indicates that it has been passed in pursuance of approval granted by the Commissioner and the impugned order is in fact the Additional information supplied by Commissioner and therefore conditions for any transfer order having been passed by the Commissioner stands satisfied. It is therefore submitted that none of the conditions indicated in the Government Orders and Circulars have been violated since there is no specific condition that if petitioner's name does not feature in the list of District Magistrates, he cannot be transferred. It is submitted that even otherwise petitioner has been transferred only to the adjoining District of Unnao.

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has submitted a representation in pursuance of directions issued by this Court but the three grounds raised by petitioner in his representation have not been adverted to in totality.

11. So far as the ground of petitioner being transferred prior to three years' of service in a particular place is concerned, learned counsel had adverted to the Government Order dated 13.05.2022. However the aforesaid Government Order does not prescribe any prohibition for transfer to be effected of a Group C employee prior to completion of three years' of service in a particular place. The condition indicated is in fact to the contrary that any person who has completed three years' of service in a particular place is compulsorily required to be transferred.

12. The second ground taken with regard to Commissioner having not passed impugned order, it is evident from a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 that it has been passed stating it having been passed in pursuance of approval granted by the Commissioner vide order dated 14.06.2025. Apparently, the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 is merely a communication of the order passed by Commissioner with regard to petitioner's transfer. The ground also therefore fails.

13. It has further been submitted that in terms of paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, a transfer order would be effected only after approval being granted by the Competent Authority. It is evident from the material on record and as per Rules of 2017 that the Divisional Commissioner is the Competent Authority for effecting transfers outside the District. In this case it has already been observed herein above that it is the Divisional Commissioner who has passed the order dated 14.06.2025 which was communicated by the Additional Commissioner. The paragraph 5(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 clearly indicates that transfers can be effected at any time on administrative grounds and approval is required to be taken in terms of requirements of the Government Order itself.

14. A perusal of the Government Order however does not indicate any such direction or provision for requirement of approval by Higher Authority then the Divisional Commissioner for purposes of transfer of petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector.

15. The letter dated 02.06.2025 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner to the effect that his name was not included in the list submitted by District Magistrate also does not hold good ground in view of the fact that the said letter clearly prescribes for a list to be prepared for those personnel who require their transfer on a voluntary basis. Obviously since petitioner had not given any such option for voluntary posting, his name was not included in the said list.

16. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be inapplicable since there does not appear to be any violation of any Government Order or Circular of the Department.

17. It is also to be noticed that petitioner has been transferred in the adjoining District of Unnao and not to a distant place.

18. So far as submission of learned counsel pertaining to paragraph 3(i) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 is concerned that transfer of Group C Employees can be effected only with the approval of Head of Department, it is evident from a perusal of Rule 4(vi) of the Rules of 2017 that it is the Commissioner and Secretary who is the Head of Department for the Cadre of Rajasva Nirikshak. In the present case, it is evident that since impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner as communicated by Additional Commissioner, there is no violation of the aforesaid.

19. In view of aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any no good ground to grant indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench