http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4360 of 2007

PETITIONER: Mohd. Masood Ahmad

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/09/2007

BENCH: C.K. Thakker & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4360 OF 2007 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20797 of 2005)

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment & order  dated 8.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ  Petition No.1110 (S/B) of 2005.

3.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.      The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika  Parishad Muzaffarnagar, had in his writ petition challenged his transfer by  the State Government by order dated 21.6.2005 as Executive Officer, Nagar  Palika Parishad Mawana, District Meerut.  Since the petitioner was on a  transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the  writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative  decision.  Interference by the Courts  with transfer orders should only be in  very rare cases.   As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an  exigency of service vide  B.Varadha Rao  vs.  State of Karnataka AIR  1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose  vs.  State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of  India  vs.  N.P. Thomas AIR 1993 SC 1605, Union of India  vs.  S.L.  Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, etc.

5.      In State of Punjab  vs.  Joginder Singh Dhatt AIR 1993 SC 2486  this Court observed (vide paragraph 3 of the said AIR) :

       "We have heard learned counsel for the parties.   This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval  of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer  of public servant from one place to another.  It is entirely  for the employer to decide when, where and at what point  of time a public servant is transferred from his present  posting.  Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to  interfere with the order of transfer.  The High Court  grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the  respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur.  The High Court  was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under  Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where,  on the face of it, no injustice was caused"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

6.      In Abani Kanta Ray  vs.  State of Orissa 1995 (Supp.) 4 SCC 169;  (1996 Lab IC 982), this Court observed  (vide paragraph 10):

       "It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident  of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless  it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala  fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle  governing the transfer.  (See N.K. Singh  vs.  Union of  India)"    

7.      The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra  Rao  vs.  Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148; (AIR 1939 SC 1236), National  Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.  vs.  Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC  574; (AIR 2001 SC 3309), State Bank of India  vs.  Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5  SCC 508; (AIR 2001 SC 1748).  Following the aforesaid principles laid  down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh   vs.  State of U.P. (1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath  Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P.  Lucknow (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle  of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a  part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered  with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction  under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or  that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued  the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.          8.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned  transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District  Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA.  On the other hand, it has been  stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that  the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him.  In our  opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was  transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not  vitiate the transfer order.  After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the  people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there  is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within  its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee.  There can be no hard and fast  rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated.   It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case.   In the  present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order.    

22.    The appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.