Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

in opposition to the writ petition. He set up the plea that he has

rich experience as Sub-Registrar having worked at places such

as Allahabad, Kanpur, Varanasi and Ghaziabad. He stated that

vigilance enquiry against him has been closed and his appeal

3 against the adverse entry made in his service record in 2005 is

pending and that pending disposal of that appeal, no effect has

been given to the said adverse entry.

5. A Government Servant has no vested right to

remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he

must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be

transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to

the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the

Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a

particular place or position, he should continue in such place or

position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan

Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402].

6. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with

the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by

violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides.

4 In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar &

Ors.1, this Court held :

"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."

7. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.2, this Court

reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer

of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse

consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited

being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of

any specific provision.

8. Insofar as the transfer of Writ Petitioner from

Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II is concerned, the High Court found

that the transfer order has not affected his service conditions 1 AIR 1991 SC 532 2 (1994) 6 SCC 1998

5 and pay and other benefits attached to the post which was held

by him. As a matter of fact, the High Court did not find any flaw

in the transfer of the Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to

Hapur-II. As regards Respondent No. 5, the High Court

considered the matter thus :

".................in our view, it is evident that the respondent No. 5 also can not be said to be an Officer having a better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner justifying his posting at Ghaziabad and in this regard, it appears that I.G. (Stamps) did not give correct information to the Principal Secretary. However, it can not be held that the respondent No. 1 in passing order dated 31st July, 2007 has acted maliciously or for extraneous reasons amounting to malafide. Once the basic ground of challenge to the impugned order of transfer that the same is malicious in law falls, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Ghaziabad to Hapur. It is not the case of petitioner that his transfer is contrary to rules or has been issued by an authority who is not competent. It is well settled that an order of transfer is amenable for judicial review on limited grounds namely it is contrary to rules or has been passed an incompetent authority or is a result of malafide. In view of admission on the part of the respondent No. 1 in his Counter Affidavit that the respondent No. 5 has been found guilty of serious misconduct for causing loss to the Government revenue by acting without jurisdiction and colluding evasion of stamp duty, in our view transfer of the respondent No. 5 to Ghaziabad can not be sustained in view of further admission on the part of the respondent No. 1 that the interest of department requires posting of an honest and efficient person at Ghaziabad."

9. It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went into

the comparative conduct and integrity of the petitioner and

Respondent No. 5 while dealing with a transfer matter. The

6 High Court should have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny

into a matter of transfer and the limited scope of judicial review.

Respondent No. 5 being a Sub-Registrar, it is for the State

Government or for that matter Inspector General of Registration

to decide about his place of posting. As to at what place

Respondent No. 5 should be posted is an exclusive prerogative

of the State Government and in exercise of that prerogative,

Respondent No. 5 was transferred from Hapur-II to Ghaziabad-

IV keeping in view administrative exigencies.

10. We are pained to observe that the High Court

seriously erred in deciding as to whether Respondent No. 5

was a competent person to be posted at Ghaziabad-IV as Sub-

Registrar. The exercise undertaken by the High Court did not

fall within its domain and was rather uncalled for. We are

unable to approve the direction issued to the State Government

and Inspector General of Registration to transfer a competent

officer at Ghaziabad-IV as Sub-Registrar after holding that

Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be an officer having a

better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner

justifying his posting at Ghaziabad-IV. The High Court entered

7 into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed

serious error of law. The only question required to be seen was

whether transfer of Respondent No. 5 was actuated with

malafides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules. The

transfer of Respondent No. 5 was not found to suffer from any

of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and

suitability of Respondent No. 5 for such posting. It is here that

the High Court fell into a grave error. As a matter of fact, the

impugned order of the High Court casts stigma in the service of

Respondent No. 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest

in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks.

11. We may also observe that transfer of the Writ

Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II cannot be said to be

stigmatic and any observation made in the impugned order

about the work and conduct of the Writ Petitioner shall not be

read adversely by the authorities against the Writ Petitioner.

12. Consequently, the order dated August 22, 2007

passed by the High Court quashing the transfer of Respondent

No. 5 from Hapur-II to Ghaziabad-IV is set aside. Appeal of

Rajendra Singh is allowed while appeal of Karvendra Singh

8 stands dismissed with clarification as indicated above. The

parties shall bear their own costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee)

........................J (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi July 31, 2009.

9