Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

UMESH KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court held that the denial of transfer does not constitute a breach of statutory or fundamental rights and therefore the intra‑court appeal lacks merit.

Summary

Umesh Kumar Sharma appealed a single judge's dismissal of his writ petition challenging his non‑transfer under Clause 3(2) of the Transfer Policy Act. He had been posted at Etawah since 7 November 2025, less than a year, and argued that a junior colleague was transferred before him, violating the policy. The High Court noted that transfer decisions are matters of administrative control and not statutory rights enforceable by courts, and that no grave prejudice or hardship was shown. Consequently, the court found no basis to interfere with the administrative decision. The intra‑court appeal was therefore dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the denial of transfer to the appellant violates Clause 3(2) of the Transfer Policy Act.
  • Whether such denial amounts to a breach of fundamental rights or arbitrariness justifying judicial intervention.
  • Whether the court can issue mandamus to compel a transfer in the absence of grave prejudice.

Legislation cited

  • Transfer Policy Act — s. Clause 3(2)

Subjects

  • transfer
  • administrative control
  • writ petition
  • mandamus
  • fundamental rights
  • intra‑court appeal
  • Allahabad High Court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1081 of 2026

Umesh Kumar Sharma
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                      :   Birendra Kaushik
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 39
                 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                 HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri Birendra Kaushik, learned counsel for the original petitioner-
appellant, Sri T.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and perused the record.

2. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the judgment and order
dated 11.08.2026 passed by the learned single judge in Umesh Kumar
Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026:AHC:168107. By that order,
the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the original
petitioner-appellant.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, grievance of the original petitioner-appellant is, a person junior to
him, who may have joined later, is being transferred first, while excluding
the original petitioner-appellant from consideration for transfer, in
contravention of Clause 3(2) of the Transfer Policy Act, does not
commend to us to pass any order that the approach of the learned single
judge was erroneous. Besides the reasoning of the learned single judge, it
is also admitted that the original petitioner-appellant has not served at the
place of posting for more than one year, he having been posted on
07.11.2025 at Etawah.

4. Matter of transfer, besides being exigency of service, is also a matter of
administrative control exercised by the higher authorities. Not every error
or infraction of a policy may give rise to breach of fundamental rights or
arbitrariness, as may provoke the writ Court to exercise its extraordinary
                                                                                           SPLA No. 1081 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    jurisdiction and interfere in transfer matters. Second, though a policy may
                                    provide for uniform application of a norm, it does not create any statutory
                                    rights to be enforced in Courts. To the extent, no grave prejudice is seen
                                    to have been caused to the original petitioner-appellant in being retained
                                    at Etawah beyond nine months from the date of his posting, and to the
                                    extent no grave hardship exists to the original petitioner-appellant for
                                    which reason he may necessarily be transferred to Aligarh. He may never
                                    claim a mandamus to be transferred.

                                    5. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the present intra-Court
                                    appeal. Accordingly, it lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                                   (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Anurag/-




Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.