Holding

A government servant has no vested right to a particular posting and transfer orders are not amenable to judicial interference unless they are tainted by malafide intent or breach of statutory provisions; therefore, the High Court's order quashing Rajendra Singh's transfer was set aside.

Summary

The case concerned the transfer of two Sub‑Registrars, Karvendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, within Uttar Pradesh. Both challenged an office order that swapped their postings, alleging arbitrariness, stigma and lack of proper consideration of service records. The High Court upheld Karvendra Singh's transfer but set aside Rajendra Singh's, prompting appeals. The Supreme Court reiterated that a government servant has no vested right to remain at a chosen post and that transfers are an inherent condition of service, subject to judicial review only on grounds of malafide intent or statutory violation. It held that the High Court had overstepped by examining the officer's competence and integrity, matters outside its jurisdiction. Consequently, the order quashing Rajendra Singh's transfer was set aside, his appeal allowed, while Karvendra Singh's appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a government servant possesses a vested right to a specific posting.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the transfer order of Rajendra Singh.
Scope of judicial review applicable to transfer orders of government servants.
Whether the transfer order was arbitrary, stigmatic or violative of service rules.
Whether the High Court could assess the competence and integrity of the officer in a transfer matter.

Subjects

service lawtransfer of government servantjudicial reviewadministrative exigencyvested rightmalafidestatutory violationtransfer order

Judgment

,\ [2009] 12 S.C.R. 243

RAJENDRA SINGH A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4975 of 2009)
JULY 31, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

Service Law- Transfer-= t.,;mited scope of judicial review
- Held: Government Servant has no vested right to remain
posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must C
be posted at one place or the other - He is liable to be
transferred in administrative exigencies - Transfer not to be
interfered with, unless such transfer was vitiated by violation
of statutory provisions or suffered from malafides.
D
On~ ·~· , WQrlcing as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad was
tra.nsferred to Ha.pur-11, and i!l '1is place, one 'R', working
a,s ~ub-~~gistrar, Ha.pur-11 was transferred to Ghaziabad.
'·t<'· Qhallenged the transfer order on the ground that the
order was arbitrary, stigmatic and suffered from non- E
application of mind and also on the additional ground that
'R' did not have a good service record. The High Court
upheld the order of transfer of 'K' but quashed the order
of transfer of 'R'. Both 'K' and 'R' were aggrieved by the
order of High Court and hence the present appeals.
F
Allowing the appeal of 'R' while dismissing the
appeal of 'K', the Court

HELD: 1. A Government Servant has no vested right
to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist G
~ 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 is not only an
incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also
243 H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A 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
B position as long as he desires. 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. [Paras 5
and 6] [247-G-H; 248-A-C]
c State of U. P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402;
Shi/pi Bose (Mrs.) &Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR (1991)
SC 532 and N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6
sec 1998, relied on.
D 2.1. Insofar a:s the transfer of 'K' from Ghaziabad-IV
to Hapur-11 is concerned, the High Court found that the
transfer order has not affected his service conditions and
pay and other benefits attached to the post which was
held by him. As a matter of fact, the High Court did not
E find any flaw ifl the transfer of 'K' from Ghaziabad-IV to
Hapur-11. [Para 8] [249-8-C]

2.2. It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went
into the comparative conduct and integrity of 'K' and 'R'
while dealing with a transfer matter. The High Court
F should have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny into
a matter of transfer and the limited scope of judicial
review. 'R' 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
G at what place 'R' should be posted is an exclusive
prerogative of the State Government and in exercise of
that prerogative!, 'R' was transferred from Hapur-11 to
Ghaziabad-IV keeping in view administrative exigencies.
[Para 9] [250-C-D]
H
RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 245

,,. 2.3. The High Court seriously erred in deciding as to A
whether 'R' 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. One is unable to approve the direction
issued to the State Government and Inspector General of B
Registration to transfer a competent officer at Ghaziabad-
'"""' IV as Sub-Registrar after holding that 'R' cannot be said
to be an officer having a better conduct and integrity in
-+- comparison to 'K' justifying his posting at Ghaziabad-IV.
"\ The High Court entered into an arena which did not c
belong to it and thereby committed serious error of law.
The only question required to be seen was whether
transfer of 'R' was actuated with malafides or otherwise
in violation of statutory rules. The transfer of 'R' was not
found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court D
went into the competence and suitability of 'R' 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 'R' which may also
act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against
E
the adverse remarks. [Para 10] [250-E-H; 251-A-B]

2.4. The transfer of 'K' from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-11
cannot be said to be stigmatic and any observation made

-
JI
in the impugned order about the work and conduct of 'K'
shall not be read adversely by the authorities against 'K'. F
The order passed by the High Court quashing the transfer

-
of 'R' from Hapur-11 to Ghaziabad-IV is set aside. [Paras
11 and 12] [251-8-D]

Case Law Reference:
G
(2004) 11 sec 402 relied on Para 5
AIR (1991) SC 532 relied on Para 6
(1994) s sec 1998 relied on Para 7
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4975 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.8.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow, in Civil
B Misc. Writ Petition No. 929 (S/B) of 2007.

WITH

C.A. No. 497€> of 2009.

Yatish Mohan, Vinita Y. Mohan, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Dr.
C Sumant Bharadwaj, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Amit Verma for the
Appellants.

Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Vandana Mishra, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment
E 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 KaNendra Singh (hereinafter referred
to as, "Writ Petitioner'') but quashed the order of transfer of
Rajendra Singh (hereinafter refen·ed to as, "Respondent No. 5").
F 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 seNice of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are
G Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued
by l.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar,
Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-11 while Respondent
No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-11 has been transferred
to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came
H to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner before the High Court
RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U,P. AND ORS. 247
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
of Allahabad, Bench Lucknow. While challenging the legality of A
... "' 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 Dali! Morcha Sangharsh Samiti,
Lucknow and that the order of transfer was arbitrary, stigmatic B
and suffers from non-application of mind. The Writ Petitioner
also set up the case that Respondent No. 5, who has been
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 c
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 D
} to be received from one Radhey Lal against the Writ Petitioner
' 'Y but Ghazi abad-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-11 was done on administrative grounds. The State E
Government emphatically refuted the allegation of mala tides
and denied thqt the ord~r 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 F
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
against the adverse entry made in his service record in 2005
is pending and that pending disposal of that appeal, no effect
G
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 H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides.
In the case of Shi/pi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar &
Ors. 1 , this Court held :

"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
D 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
E 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 leual rights. Even if a transfer order
is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders,
the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order
F 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
G
these aspects in interferinn with the transfer orders."

7. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 2 , this Court

1. Air 1991 SC ~i32.
H 2. (1994) s sec 1998.
RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 249
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

.. )•
reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer
of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse
A

consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited
being confined only to the grounds of mala tides or violation of
any specific provision.
-'
B
8. Insofar as the transfer of Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-
IV to Hapur-1! is concerned, the High Court found that the
transfer order has not affected his service c0Q9itions 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-11. As
c
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 D
-i conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner
~
justifying his posting at Ghaziabad and in this regard, it
appears that l.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, E
2007 has acted maliciously or for extraneous reasons
amounting to malafide. Once the ba.sic 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 F
· the petitioner from Ghaziabad to Hapur. It is not the case
of petitioner that his transf~r 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 G
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
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R

A 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
B 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 High
c 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 mat!E~r 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
D of the State Government and in exercise of that prerogative,
Respondent No. 5 was transferred from Hapur-11 to Ghaziabad- t

IV keeping in view administrative exigencies. ..
10. We are pained to observe that the High Court seriously
E 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
F 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 Ghai:iabad-IV. The High Court entered
into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby committed
G
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
H
RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 251
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
-.I
_,,
of Respondent No. 5 for such posting. It is here that the High A
),.
> 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.
,. B
·11. We may also observe that transfer of the Writ Petitioner
from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-11 cannot be said to be stigmatic
and any observation made in the impugned order about the
work and conduct 6f the Writ Petitioner shall not be read
adversely by the authorities against the Writ Petitioner.
c
12. Consequently, the order dated August 22, 2007
passed by the High Court quashing the transfer of Respondent
No. 5 from Hapur-11 to Ghaziabad-IV is set aside. Appeal of
Rajendra Singh is allowed while appeal of Karvendra Singh
stands dismissed with clarification as indicated above. The D
parties shall bear their own costs.
-f
• B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.
"""'

.....