Transfer Is An Administrative Decision, Courts Should Interfere With Such Orders Only In Very Rare Cases: Allahabad HC Reiterates

Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court cannot interfere in transfer orders as they are administrative in nature and are inherent conditions of appointment.

While declining to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner, a bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another."

The petitioner, a government employee, was transferred from district Agra to district Saharanpur on grounds of exigency of work. Petitioner challenged the transfer on grounds that he was transferred from district Farrukhabad to district Agra three months ago, and the impugned transfer was hurriedly ordered, prejudicing him. Further, it was prayed that since the petitioner was suffering from heart diseases, he may be transferred to Prayagraj or any nearby locations.

Reliance was placed by the petitioner on Anar Singh vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Anubhag 3 and another wherein the Allahabad High Court had issued directions to the State Government to decide the concerned petitioner's representation. The joining pursuant to the impugned order was stayed till disposal of the representation.

Defending the transfer order, counsel for respondent submitted that the transfer order was an administrative one and was passed on grounds of exigency of work. No interference in the order was warranted.

The Court relied on Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others, wherein the Supreme Court held

"2. .....Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The courts cannot interfere in such matters. ...."

The Court further placed reliance on Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and others, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the law regarding transfer of government employees.

"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."

Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the Court refused to interfere in the transfer order. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities by way of a representation for his transfer to any other place based on vacancy and pressing medical grounds.

Case Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472 [WRIT - A No. - 18992 of 2023]

Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472

Click Here To Read/Download Order