Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Constable No. 432 Gulab Chand Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 70611 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21643 (22 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70611 of 2006

Constable No.432 Gulab Chand Yadav


State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner, who had been performing and discharging duties as constable, has approached this Court, challenging the validity of order dated 18.12.2006 2006, whereby he has been transferred from Varansi to District Chandauli.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case personal inconvenience would be caused to his client on account of his transfer, as such transfer order is liable to be interfered with.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the  petitioner is member of disciplined force, and in administrative exigency he has been transferred, as such no interference is warranted, and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position is that  petitioner is member of disciplined force and holds transferable post, and in the order which has been passed, there is no violation of any statutory Rules nor is there any element of mala fide.

In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar 1995 (71) F.L.R. 1011, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a government servant holding 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 other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal right. Even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions  or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead the affected party  should approach the higher authorities in the Department.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Goverdhan Lal; 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (Act or Rule)  or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot be lightly 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 transfer or containing transfer policies at the 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 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.

Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Janardan Debanath, 2004 (4) SCC 245 has taken the view that no government servant has any legal right to be posted  for ever at one particular place, and such transfer order shall not be interfered with unless the power of transfer has been exercised mala fide or statutory Rules have been violated. Apart from this when there is prima satisfaction on contemporary reports being received about the conduct of incumbent, instead of taking recourse to regular disciplinary proceeding, incumbent can be transferred.

On the touchstone of the judgments cited above, claim of petitioner is adjudged.  In the present case, as petitioner is member of disciplined force and transfer has been made in administrative exigency in adjoining district Chandauli from Varanasi, as such there is no occasion to interfere with the transfer order.

Writ petition, as has been framed and drawn, lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.