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


Akhilesh Kumar Asthana v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 62255 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19228 (15 November 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. 62255 of 2006

Akhilesh Kumar Asthana


State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner is an employee of Civil Court, Azamgarh. District Judge, Azamgarh on 09.01.2006, keeping in view the conduct of petitioner, requested this Court to transfer him from Judgeship of Azamgarh to any other Judgeship. This Court, on 10.11.2006, on administrative side took decision for transferring petitioner from Azamgarh Judgeship to Ghazipur Judgeship in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case transfer order is based on complaint, as such, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will amount to punishment, as such transfer of petitioner is clearly vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency. There were contemporary reports against him and instead of undertaking disciplinary action, decision has been taken to transfer him, and  the power of transfer is there, as such no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed position is that qua functioning of petitioner, there were various complaints. District Judge, Azamgarh on 09.01.2006 recommended for transferring petitioner from the said Judgeship. 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.

Thus, an incumbent can be transferred when there are contemporary reports against him. In the present case, authorities in their wisdom  have chosen to transfer the petitioner, instead of taking disciplinary action against him. Petitioner has been transferred  by this Court based on contemporary reports submitted against petitioner. Authority of this Court to transfer the petitioner on administrative side has not been questioned. Consequently, no interference is warranted by this Court.  Writ petition 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.