Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the transfer orders and the corrigendum were valid administrative actions not tainted by mala‑fide or statutory breach, and therefore the petition for quashing was dismissed.
Summary
Manish Kumar, an Executive Officer of a Urban Local Body, challenged a series of transfer orders issued by the Bihar Urban Development and Housing Department that moved him from Dumraon to Buxar and then, by a same‑day corrigendum, to Daudnagar, while another officer (respondent 6) was transferred to Buxar. He sought certiorari to quash the original notification, the corrigendum, the order relieving respondent 6, and to compel the authorities to let him remain in Buxar, alleging that the transfers required prior permission of the Election Commission and that the corrigendum was not a mere typographical correction. The State argued that the transfers were administrative decisions taken under the 2007‑2009 transfer policy and that no mala‑fide or statutory violation was shown. The Court examined the factual timeline, the nature of the corrigendum, and the established jurisprudence that transfers are a necessary incident of service and can be interfered with only on grounds of mala‑fide or violation of a mandatory rule. Finding no such infirmity, the Court held that the transfer orders were valid and the petitioner had no right to a writ. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the transfer order dated 30‑06‑2025 and its corrigendum dated the same day are liable to be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity or lack of Election Commission permission.
- Whether the petitioner has a vested right to remain in the post of Executive Officer at Nagar Parishad, Buxar.
- Whether the order relieving respondent 6 and his assumption of charge at Buxar can be set aside.
- Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with administrative transfer orders absent proof of mala‑fide or statutory violation.
Subjects
- transfer of government servant
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Election Commission permission
- corrigendum
- administrative law
- service law
- Article 226
- mala fide
- public interest
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13897 of 2025
======================================================
Manish Kumar Son of Sakal Dev Bhakata, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Maudan Bujurg, P.S.- Patepur, District - Vaishali at Hajipur, presently posted
as Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Buxar, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Buxar, District- Buxar.
5. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj.
6. Kumar Ritwik, Son of not known to the petitioner, Presently transferred to
the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Buxar, District - Buxar.
7. Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Nirvachan Sadan, through the
Chief Election Commissioner.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AC to SC-12
For the E.C.I : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent no.6 : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
Ms. Snehil Pratik, Advocate
For the Nagar Parishad, Buxar : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State of Bihar and learned Senior counsel for the
respondent no.6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
2/25
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing
the notification dated 30.06.2025 issued under
the signature of the Respondent no.3 and
contained in his memo no.7261 dated
30.06.2025 whereby and where under a
corrigendum was issued by the Respondent no.3,
modifying the place of posting of 24 Executive
Officers of different Urban Local Bodies, who
were transferred and post, their present place of
posting vide notification dated 30.06.2025 issued
under the signature of the Respondent no.3 and
contained in his memo no.7259 dated
30.06.2025, so far change of place of posting of
petitioner and Respondent no.6 is concerned.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing
the order dated 14.08.2025 issued under the
signature of the Respondent no.5 and contained
in his memo no.2905 dated 14.08.2025, whereby
and where under the Respondent no.5 has been
pleased to relieve the Respondent no.6 from the
post of Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat ,
Thakurganj to facilitate his joining as the
Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Buxar in
view of Notification No.7261 dated 30.06.2025
notwithstanding that the transfer order issued by
the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are subject to
completion of intensive revision of the electoral
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
3/25
roll and the transfer orders can be made
effective either after the work of special intensive
revision is over and after necessary permission
is received from the Election Commission of
India for which the ElectionCommission has
been requested under letter no.7210 dated
30.06.2025.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing
the action of Respondent no.6, whereby and
where under he has resumed the charges of the
office of Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad,
Buxar vide his letter no.3726 dated 16.08.2025
even while, the petitioner was on leave for
performing the last rituals of his wife, whom the
petitioner had unfortunately lost on 03.08.2025
and he was to be performed her last rituals
(Sharadh) on 15.08.2025, as also on the ground
that the Respondent no.6 was since in hurry to
join at Buxar, he had assumed the charges on
16.08.2025 when the office was closed on the
occasion of Janmasthmi.
(IV) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of MANDAMUS,commanding
and directing the Respondent Authorities to
allow the petitioner tocontinue as the Executive
Officer of Buxar Nagar Parishad in view of his
transfer order under memo no.7259 dated
30.06.2025.
(V) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ / writs, order / orders direction/
directions for which the writ petitioner would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
4/25
found entitled under the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having
been appointed as Executive Officer of Urban Local Body, the
petitioner started discharging his duties with all sincerity and
devotion. His service record is excellent throughout and he has
never been subjected to any proceeding even for infliction of a
minor punishment. While the petitioner was posted as the
Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Dumraon, taking into
consideration his hard and sincere work as Executive Officer in
different Urban Local Bodies, the petitioner was given
additional charge of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Buxar
vide notification dated 14.6.2025.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-
Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of
Bihar came out with a notification contained in memo no.7259
dated 30.6.2025 transferring the petitioner from Dumraon to the
post of Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Buxar. On the
same day i.e. 30.6.2025, the respondents came out with another
notification contained in memo no.7261 dated 30.6.2025
whereby the petitioner’s posting was changed from Buxar to
Daudnagar and in his place the respondent no.6 who had earlier
been transferred from Nagar Panchayat, Thakurganj to Nagar
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
5/25
Parishad, Dehri, Dalmianagar was now transferred to be posted
as Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Buxar.
5. It is submitted by Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that clause 2 of the transfer
order contained in memo no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 clearly
provided that joining as a result of the said transfer could only
be done after obtaining permission of the Election Commission
of India or on conclusion of the work of Special Intensive
Revision (S.I.R.) of the voters list. It is submitted that the
petitioner who had on an earlier occasion by order dated
14.6.2025 been given the additional charge and had started
working as an Assistant Electoral Registration Officer of Nagar
Parishad at Buxar, consequent to his transfer order contained in
memo no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 started to function full-fledged
as Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Buxar. It was for the
reason that clause 2 and 3 of the memo no.7259 was not
applicable in case of the petitioner.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that the
respondent no.6 managed the District Magistrate, Kishanganj
and without the conditions mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of
memo no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 having been satisfied, he got
himself relieved by order dated 14.8.2025 for his joining at
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
6/25
Buxar. It is further submitted that 15.8.2025 (Independence
Day) being a national holiday, the offices were closed on
16.8.2025 also on account of Anant Pooja, however the
respondent no.6 assumed charge in the office of the Executive
Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Buxar unilaterally. At this time, the
petitioner was on leave on account of performing the last rituals
of his wife which was scheduled for 15.8.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the so-called corrigendum (contained in memo no.7261
dated 30.6.2025) of the original transfer order is not a
corrigendum in view of the fact that 126 officers have been
transferred from one place to other with the name of the
petitioner and the respondent no.6 figuring at serial nos.39 and
125 respectively. It is submitted that in view of the facts and
circumstances stated herein above, the corrigendum issued to
the original order of transfer, as contained in memo no.7261
dated 30.6.2025, is not sustainable and be quashed. The
petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 14.8.2025
whereby the District Magistrate, Kishanganj relieved the
respondent no.6 from the post of Executive Officer of Nagar
Panchayat, Thakurganj for his joining at Buxar. It is also prayed
that the action of respondent no.6 unilaterally assuming his
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
7/25
charge at Buxar be also quashed. The petitioner further prays for
directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to
continue to work as Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad at
Buxar and allow the instant application.
8. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar. Referring to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 it is
submitted that so far as the impugned departmental notification
no.7261 dated 30.6.2025 is concerned, the same is merely a
corrigendum whereby and whereunder typing errors which had
occurred in the departmental notification no.7259 dated
30.6.2025 have been rectified and the petitioner has been
transferred and posted to Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar with
additional charge of Nagar Panchayat, Barun. By the said
corrigendum, the private respondent no.6 has been transferred
and posted at Nagar Parishad, Buxar. Learned counsel further
submits that the transfers in question are to become effective
only after getting permission from the Election Commission of
India or on completion of S.I.R. 2025, whichever is earlier. It is
submitted that transfer of a government servant is an incidence
of service and the same in the instant case is neither punitive in
nature nor malafide. The State of Bihar is competent to transfer
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
8/25
any government servant in administrative exigency and also in
terms of the transfer policy of the State contained in
Government Resolution no.434 dated 1.3.2007 as also the
Cabinet Secretariat Department’s Letter no.881 dated 3.6.2009.
It is submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is not
sustainable and hence the writ application be dismissed.
9. Opposing the writ application Mr. Jitendra Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submits
that the petitioner was given the additional charge of Executive
Officer, Nagar Parishad, Buxar not on the ground of his hard
and sincere work but for the reason that on transfer of the full-
fledged Executive Officer, the post of the Executive Officer at
Nagar Parishad, Buxar had fallen vacant. It is submitted that as
a result of the corrigendum contained in memo no.7261 dated
30.6.2025, the notification contained in memo no.7259 dated
30.6.2025 stood modified and the petitioner has been transferred
from Nagar Parishad, Buxar to Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar. By
the said corrigendum the transfer of respondent no.6 from
Thakurganj to Dalmianagar also stands rectified and he has now
been posted as Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Buxar.
10. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.6
submits that consequent to the issuance of the corrigendum, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
9/25
transfer of the petitioner from Dumraon to Buxar was not made
operational and the post of the Executive Officer of Nagar
Parishad, Buxar was vacant. Thus the respondent no.6 on being
relieved went and assumed charge at Buxar. There is no
illegality in the same. The Election Commission of India also
having issued specific directions contained in letter dated
3.7.2025 that transfer and posting may be made for filling up
vacant posts that the respondent no.6 was relieved by the
District Magistrate, Kishanganj for giving his joining at Buxar.
It is submitted that many Executive Officers of different Urban
Local Bodies were relieved from their present place of posting
for joining in light of the order of transfer issued by the State
Government. So far as challenge to the order of transfer by the
petitioner is concerned, the petitioner can succeed only on the
merits of his own case and not by making contentions with
respect to the illegality in the order of transfer of respondent
no.6. It is submitted that transfer is an incidence of service and
scope of interference by the Court in such matters is very
limited. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior counsel on
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2009) 15 SCC
178 and State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
10/25
It is finally submitted that so far as the notification dated
5.10.2025 transferring the respondent no.6 from Nagar
Panchayat, Thakurganj to petitioner’s posting as Project Officer-
cum-Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna is concerned, the
respondent no.6 has already represented against the same.
11. It may be observed here that by order dated
30.8.2025, the Election Commission of India was added as
respondent no.7 in the instant case and by order dated 1.9.2025
four weeks time was granted for filing counter affidavit. No
counter affidavit has been filed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
13. The relevant facts in brief are that the Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar
came out with a notification no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 under the
signature of the Additional Secretary transferring 126 officers of
the Bihar Administrative Service to different Urban Local
Bodies. The petitioner and the respondent no.6 whose names
figure at serial nos.39 and 125 respectively were also
transferred. The petitioner was transferred from Nagar Parishad,
Dumraon to Nagar Parishad, Buxar while the respondent no.6
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
11/25
from Nagar Panchayat, Thakurganj to Nagar Parishad, Dehri,
Dalmianagar.
14. On the same day the respondent-Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar
came out with a corrigendum bearing memo no.7261 dated
30.6.2025. The corrigendum states that certain typographical
errors had occurred in notification no.7259 dated 30.6.2025
which was being corrected. By the corrigendum, the petitioner
whose name figured at serial no.39 and had been notified to be
transferred to Nagar Parishad, Buxar with additional charge of
Nagar Panchayat, Chausa was now transferred to Nagar
Parishad, Daudnagar with additional charge of Nagar Panchayat,
Barun. By this corrigendum, the respondent no.6 whose name
figured at serial no.125 was transferred from Nagar Parishad,
Dehri, Dalmianagar to Nagar Parishad, Buxar.
15. By order contained in memo no.2905 dated
14.8.2025 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate –
cum– Collector, Kishanganj, the respondent no.6 was relieved in
the forenoon of 14.8.2025 for giving his joining at his new place
of posting i.e. Nagar Parishad, Buxar.
16. As per the case of respondent no.6, he gave his
joining at Buxar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
12/25
17. It has been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that by notification dated 14.6.2025, the petitioner had
been given the additional charge of Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Buxar, however this Court finds that on the
respondents coming out with the order of transfer contained in
notification no.7259 dated 30.6.2025, the present place of
posting of the petitioner (at serial no.39) is shown only to be
Nagar Parishad, Dumraon from where he is transferred to Nagar
Parishad, Buxar. Further, it was only a few hours later and on
the same day that the respondent-Department came out with the
corrigendum contained in notification no.7261 dated 30.6.2025
making corrections in the order of transfer of the petitioner from
Nagar Parishad, Buxar with additional charge of Nagar
Panchayat, Chausa to Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar with
additional charge of Nagar Panchayat, Barun. The conclusion
which this Court thus draws from these facts is that on the date
of transfer i.e. 30.6.2025, the petitioner was not the In-charge of
Nagar Parishad, Buxar and further his transfer to Nagar
Parishad, Buxar was corrected by the corrigendum on the same
day to Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar.
18. So far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner
that as per the policy of the State Government in normal
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
13/25
circumstances transfers takes place only after an officer has
remained at one place for three years and that the respondent
no.6 had remained at Thakurganj for less than three years, the
Court finds no merit in the submission. On the date that the
respondent came out with the order of transfer vide notification
no.7259 dated 30.6.2025, the petitioner had remained as
Executive Officer in Nagar Parishad, Dumraon for three years.
So far as the respondent no.6 having remained posted at
Thakurganj for only two years on the date of his transfer vide
Notification no.7259 is concerned, it is not for the petitioner but
for respondent no.6 to complain against the same.
19. It was further contended on behalf of the
petitioner that by order dated 5.10.2025 of the Urban
Development and Housing Department, the respondent no.6 has
been transferred and posted as a Project Officer –cum– Deputy
Director in the Department and the same has not been
challenged by the said respondent. It may be observed here that
the instant writ application has not been filed by respondent
no.6 but by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to succeed on
the merits of his own case and which cannot be on the weakness
of the case of respondent no.6 or his not having challenged any
order passed against him. As submitted by learned Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
14/25
Counsel, the respondent no.6 has represented against the said
order. The Court thus finds no merit in this submission made on
behalf of the petitioner.
20. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is
that by the corrigendum contained in notification no.7261 dated
30.6.2025, the petitioner had been transferred and posted at
Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar. The incumbent who had been
transferred from Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar to Purnea has
obtained an order of stay in a writ application filed in this Court.
It is thus submitted that the petitioner would not be able to join
his place of posting i.e. at Daudnagar. It may only be observed
here that an interim order of stay passed by this Court in favour
of an officer posted at Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar would not
make the transfer of the petitioner to Nagar Parishad, Daudnagar
an illegal order. This cannot be the basis for the petitioner to
succeed in the instant writ application. It will be for the
petitioner to represent before the respondents for clearing the
difficulty that has arisen as a result of the order passed in the
connected writ application. The Court finds no merit in this
submission also made on behalf of the petitioner.
21. So far as transfers are concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Singh vs. Union of India;
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
15/25
(AIR 1995 SC 423) held that transfer of a government servant
in a transferrable service is a necessary incident of the service
career. Several factors are taken into account in a transfer and
the only realistic approach is to leave the same to the wisdom of
the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. The relevant
portion of paragraph no.22 of the judgment is quoted herein
below for ready reference :-
“22.……....Transfer of a government
servant in a transferable service is a necessary
incident of the service career. Assessment of the
quality of men is to be made by the superiors
taking into account several factors including
suitability of the person for a particular post and
exigencies of administration. Several
imponderables requiring formation of a
subjective opinion in that sphere may be
involved, at times. The only realistic approach is
to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical
superiors to make that decision. Unless the
decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of
any professed norm or principle governing the
transfer, which alone can be scrutinised
judicially, there are no judicially manageable
standards for scrutinising all transfers and the
courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel
management of all government departments.
This must be left, in public interest, to the
departmental heads subject to the limited
judicial scrutiny indicated.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
16/25
22. In the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.8 and 9 held as
follows :-
“8. 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 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] , SCC p. 406,
para 7).
9. 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. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp
(2) SCC 659 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 127 : AIR 1991
SC 532] this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4)
“4. In our opinion, the courts should not
interfere with a transfer order which is
made in public interest and for
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
17/25
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.”
23. As to what would be the scope of judicial review
in matters of transfer, in the case of N. K. Singh (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
“6. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned
counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the
scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of
a government servant to an equivalent post
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
18/25
without any adverse consequence on the service
or career prospects is very limited being
confined only to the grounds of mala fides and
violation of any specific provision or guideline
regulating such transfers amounting to
arbitrariness……”
24. With respect to the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in matters of transfer,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.; (2007) 8 SCC 150, held as follows :-
“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 Roy v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC
148 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 138 : (1993) 23 ATC
426 : AIR 1993 SC 1236], National
Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri
Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
21 : AIR 2001 SC 3309], State Bank of India v.
Anjan Sanyal [(2001) 5 SCC 508 : 2001 SCC
(L&S) 858 : AIR 2001 SC 1748]. Following the
aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme
Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal
Singh v. State of U.P. [(1997) 3 ESC 1668 : 1998
All LJ 70] and Onkar Nath Tiwari v. Chief
Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. [(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
19/25
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.”
25. In the case of Airports Authority of India vs.
Rajeev Ratan Pandey; (2009) 8 SCC 337, placing reliance on
the judgment in the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“7. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal
[(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] ,
while dealing with a matter of transfer, this
Court observed that allegations of mala fides
must inspire confidence of the Court and ought
not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or
on consideration borne out of conjectures or
surmises and except for strong and convincing
reasons, no interference would ordinarily be
made with an order of transfer. That the burden
of proving mala fides is on a person levelling
such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits
of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald
statement is not enough to discharge the heavy
burden that the law imposes upon the person
levelling allegations of mala fides; it must be
supported by requisite materials.”
26. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. S. S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
20/25
Kourav; (AIR 1995 SC 1056), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows :-
“4. It is contended for the respondent
that the respondent had already worked at
Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was
transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification
to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We cannot
appreciate these grounds. The courts or
tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on
transfers of officers on administrative grounds.
The wheels of administration should be allowed
to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are
not expected to interdict the working of the
administrative system by transferring the officers
to proper places. It is for the administration to
take appropriate decision and such decisions
shall stand unless they are vitiated either by
mala fides or by extraneous consideration
without any factual background foundation. In
this case we have seen that on the administrative
grounds the transfer orders came to be issued.
Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of
posting an officer at a particular place.”
27. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose vs. State of
Bihar; (AIR 1991 SC 532), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows :-
“4. In our opinion, the courts should
not interfere with a transfer order which is made
in public interest and for administrative reasons
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
21/25
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.”
28. In the case of Gobardhan Lal (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.7 and 8 held as
follows :-
“7. It is too late in the day for any
government servant to contend that once
appointed or posted in a particular place or
position, he should continue in such place or
position as long as he desires. Transfer of an
employee is not only an incident inherent in the
terms of appointment but also implicit as an
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
22/25
essential condition of service in the absence of
any specific indication to the contra, in the law
governing or conditions of service. Unless the
order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a
mala fide exercise of power or violative of any
statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by
an authority not competent to do so, an order of
transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a
matter of course or routine for any or every type
of grievance sought to be made. Even
administrative guidelines for regulating transfers
or containing transfer policies at best may afford
an opportunity to the officer or servant
concerned to approach their higher authorities
for redress but cannot have the consequence of
depriving or denying the competent authority to
transfer a particular officer/servant to any place
in public interest and as is found necessitated by
exigencies of service as long as the official status
is not affected adversely and there is no
infraction of any career prospects such as
seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.
This Court has often reiterated that the order of
transfer made even in transgression of
administrative guidelines cannot also be
interfered with, as they do not confer any legally
enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra,
shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in
violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer
should normally be eschewed and should not be
countenanced by the courts or tribunals as
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
23/25
though they are Appellate Authorities over such
orders, which could assess the niceties of the
administrative needs and requirements of the
situation concerned. This is for the reason that
courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own
decisions in the matter of transfer for that of
competent authorities of the State and even
allegations of mala fides when made must be
such as to inspire confidence in the court or are
based on concrete materials and ought not to be
entertained on the mere making of it or on
consideration borne out of conjectures or
surmises and except for strong and convincing
reasons, no interference could ordinarily be
made with an order of transfer.”
29. From the contents of the judgments referred to and
relevant portions of which have been reproduced herein above,
it would transpire that so far as the scope of interference in
matters of transfer by the High Court in exercise of its power
under Article 226 is concerned, the same is very limited. Unless
the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide
exercise of power, violative of any statutory provision or having
been passed by an authority not competent to do so, the transfer
order cannot be interfered with.
30. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned,
no malafide has been alleged nor substantiated against any of
the respondents. The petitioner, before the order of transfer
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
24/25
came to be passed, had remained on the said post and at the said
place for a period of three years. He does not contend that the
authority passing the order of transfer did not have the powers
to do so nor does he plead violation of any of the provisions of
any Act or Rules framed thereunder.
31. In some of the judgments cited herein above, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that transfers when made
on administrative grounds are not to be lightly interfered with
by the High Court. In it’s judgment in the case of Shilpi Bose
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if a transfer
order is passed in violation of administrative instructions or
orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order
instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities
in the Department.
32. It may be observed here that so far as the order of
transfer contained in memo no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 is
concerned, though the same does not use the words ‘for
administrative reasons’ or ‘on administrative grounds’, however
a bare perusal of the same would show that it was not just the
petitioner and the respondent no.6 but a total of 126 persons
posted in different Urban Local Bodies who have been
transferred from one place to another. It was thus an order
Patna High Court CWJC No.13897 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
25/25
passed on administrative grounds and no malafides can be
alleged against any of the authorities, which has rightly not been
done by the petitioner in this case. Further, so far as the
corrigendum contained in memo no.7261 dated 30.6.2025 is
concerned, the same clearly states that it is for the purpose of
correcting typographical errors in the original order of transfer,
the same was passed on the same day i.e. 30.6.2025, was with
respect to 24 persons and clause 2 thereof clearly provides that
the notification no.7259 dated 30.6.2025 stands amended to the
said extent.
33. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above together with the law laid down in cases of transfer
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as stated above, in the opinion
of this Court, the petitioner has not made out any case for
interference by this Court in the impugned orders.
34. The Court finds no merit in the instant application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 27.11.2025
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…