Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4975 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP© No. 16307/2007)

Rajendra Singh etc.etc.      …Appellants

Versus   State of U.P. & Ors.   …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4976 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP© No. 18428/2007)

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. These  two  appeals  are  directed  against  the  

Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at  

Lucknow on August 22, 2007 whereby the High Court although  

upheld the order of the transfer of Karvendra Singh (hereinafter  

referred  to  as,  “Writ  Petitioner”)  but  quashed  the  order  of

transfer  of  Rajendra  Singh  (hereinafter  referred  to  as,  

“Respondent No. 5”).  Both, Writ Petitioner and Respondent No.  

5,  are aggrieved by the order  of  the High Court  and hence,  

these two appeals by special leave.

2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the  

revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are  

Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued  

by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar,  

Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent  

No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-II has been transferred  

to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came  

to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner before the High Court of  

Allahabad,  Bench Lucknow.  While  challenging  the  legality  of  

the transfer order,  Writ  Petitioner set up the grounds that he  

joined  as  Sub-Registrar,  Ghaziabad,  Sadar-IV  only  a  month  

back; that the transfer order has been issued on the complaint  

of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti,  

Lucknow and that the order of transfer was arbitrary, stigmatic  

and suffers from non-application of  mind.  The Writ  Petitioner  

also set  up the case that  Respondent  No. 5,  who has been  

2

transferred in his place as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad-IV did not  

have  good  service  record;  that  there  was  vigilance  enquiry  

pending against  Respondent  No.  5  on charges of  corruption  

and  that  his  service  record  bears  adverse  entry  in  the  year  

2005.  

3. Respondent No. 5 as well as the State Government  

vehemently  opposed the writ  petition.  On behalf  of  the State  

Government, it was submitted that although a complaint came  

to be received from one Radhey Lal against the Writ Petitioner  

but Ghaziabad-IV being an important Sub-District from the point  

of view of registration of deeds/instruments as well as revenue  

collection, the transfer of Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to  

Hapur-II  was  done  on  administrative  grounds.   The  State  

Government emphatically refuted the allegation of mala fides  

and denied that the order of transfer was stigmatic or punitive.  

4. Respondent No. 5 filed a separate counter affidavit  

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