# Deo Nath Yadav v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1343
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-25
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deo-nath-yadav-v-registrar-general-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-others-42004
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Transfer-petitioner
working
as
Chowkidaar
in
Judgeship
Lakhimpur
Khiri-Transferred to judgeship Mahoba
mala fide allegation against District Judge
who
being
annoyed
with
personal
allegations-dealing
with
promotionpassed impugned order of transfer heldtransfer being exigency of service-can not
be
interfered
unless
mala-fide
or
contravention
of
rules-found-no
interference called for.

Held: Para 8

The law is well settled that transfer being
exigency of service can be effected by the
employer concerned in accordance with
administrative exigency, in the interest of
administration and public interest at any
point
of
time
and
that
cannot
be
monitored and guided by this Court
unless it may be shown that transfer
order is vitiated on account of the
contravention of the statute , or lacks
jurisdiction or mala fide.
Case law discussed:
1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; 1993 Supp (1) SCC
04; (1994) 6 SCC 98; (1995) 2 SCC 532; AIR
1993 SC 2444; (1993) 1 SCC 148; 1992 (1)
SCC 306; AIR 2001 SC 3309; 2005 (2) ESC
1224; 1996 (1) UPLBEC 347; 2006 (5) AWC
4755; (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338

## Text

3 All] Deo Nath Yadav V. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & others
1343
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8239 of 2011

Deo Nath Yadav S/O Bajrangi Yadav

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General, High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Qamrul Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Kumar

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Transfer-petitioner
working
as
Chowkidaar
in
Judgeship
Lakhimpur
Khiri-Transferred to judgeship Mahoba
mala fide allegation against District Judge
who
being
annoyed
with
personal
allegations-dealing
with
promotionpassed impugned order of transfer heldtransfer being exigency of service-can not
be
interfered
unless
mala-fide
or
contravention
of
rules-found-no
interference called for.

Held: Para 8

The law is well settled that transfer being
exigency of service can be effected by the
employer concerned in accordance with
administrative exigency, in the interest of
administration and public interest at any
point
of
time
and
that
cannot
be
monitored and guided by this Court
unless it may be shown that transfer
order is vitiated on account of the
contravention of the statute , or lacks
jurisdiction or mala fide.
Case law discussed:
1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; 1993 Supp (1) SCC
04; (1994) 6 SCC 98; (1995) 2 SCC 532; AIR
1993 SC 2444; (1993) 1 SCC 148; 1992 (1)
SCC 306; AIR 2001 SC 3309; 2005 (2) ESC
1224; 1996 (1) UPLBEC 347; 2006 (5) AWC
4755; (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. )

1. Heard Sri Qamrul Hasan,learned
counsel
for
petitioner
and
Sri
S.P.
Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
of
transfer
dated
05.11.2011 (Annexure No. 1) passed by
O.P. No. 1/Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Allahabad.

3. Facts of the present case as
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner
are that the petitioner appoint on the post of
Chowkidar/Faras by order dated 01.1.1998
under Judgeship of Lakhimpur Kheri, a
Class-IV post, still working and discharging
in the said capacity.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
further submits that for redressal of his
grievances in respect to the promotion to
next higher post, he had filed a Writ Petition
No. 7114 of 2010 before this Court
impleaded the then District Judge, Kheri/Sri
Amar Singh Chauhan (now presently
posted as District Judge, Bulandshahar)
O.P. No. 2 and also alleged certain
allegations against him. When the said fact
come to knowledge of the O.P. No. 2, he
hurriedly on 27.09.2010 made a complaint
against the petitioner to Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, Allahabad High Court.

5. Sri Qamrul Hasan,learned counsel
for petitioner submits that in view of the
said compliant, the order dated 05.11.2011
has been passed by which the petitioner
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
transferred from Judgeship, Lakhimpur
Kheri to Judgeship, Mahoba.

6. While assailing the impugned order
of transfer, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the same is illegal and arbitrary
in nature as the same is outcome, personal
prejudice and bias of the O.P. No. 2, against
the transfer policy issued by the government
in respect to the transfer of Class-IV
employee.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner
further challenged the impugned order of
transfer on the ground that the same has
been passed in a mid-session and as his
three children (sons and daughter, namely,
Km. Luky Yadava, Lavi Yadav, Aryan
Yadav) are studying in Class-IV, II and
Nursery in the institution known as
Children's Academy, Lakhimpur Kheri , in
case if the petitioner is transferred in the
mid-session, the study of his children will
suffer in the present era of competition. So,
the impugned order of transfer is illegal,
liable to be set aside.

8. The law is well settled that transfer
being exigency of service can be effected by
the employer concerned in accordance with
administrative exigency, in the interest of
administration and public interest at any
point of time and that cannot be monitored
and guided by this Court unless it may be
shown that transfer order is vitiated on
account of the contravention of the statute ,
or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs.
State of Bihar and others , 1991 Supp (2)
SCC 659, has held as under:-

" In our opinion , the courts should not
interfere with a transfer order which is
made
in
public
interest
and
for
administrative reasons unless the transfer
order 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."

10. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India another Vs. N.P.
Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 and
N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others
(1994) 6 SCC 98 holding therein if a person
holding a transferable post, is transferred,
there is no violation of any statutory/
mandatory rules then the same is not subject
to judicial review.

11. Further, in the case of Chief
General Manager, ( Telecom) N.E.
Telecom
Circle
and
another
Vs.
Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others,
(1995) 2 SCC 532 Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-

"It is needless to emphasise that a
government employee or any servant of a
public undertaking has no legal right to
insist for being posted at any particular
place. It cannot be disputed that the
respondent holds a transferable post and
unless specifically provided in his service
conditions, he was no choice in the matter
of posting. Since the respondent has no
legal or statutory right to claim his posting
3 All] Deo Nath Yadav V. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & others
1345
at Agartala, therefore, there was no
justification for the Tribunal to set aside the
respondent's transfer to Dimpur."

12. In view of the above, in the instant
case, on the part of petitioner no legal or
statutory right to claim his posting at
Lakhimpur Kheri when the order of transfer
dated 05.11.2011 passed O.P. No. 1 is not in
violation of any statutory rules.

13. Now coming to another issue
involved in the present case as argued by
learned counsel for petitioenr that the
impugned order of transfer is in violation of
transfer policy is also not correct because in
the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas
, AIR 1993 SC 2444, Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as under :-

" The said guideline, however, does
not confer upon the Government employee
a legally enforceable right."

14. The said view has been reiterated
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India another
(1993) 1 SCC 148 wherein the Apex Court
has held as under:-

"It is true that the order of transfer
often causes a lot of difficulties and
dislocation in the family set up of the
concerned employees but on that score the
Oder of transfer is not liable to be struck
down. Unless such order is passed mala
fide or in violation of the rules of service
and guidelines for transfer without any
proper justification the Court and the
Tribunal should not interfere with the order
of transfer."

15. In the case of Bank of India Vs.
Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992 (1) SCC 306,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-

" The said observations in fact tend to
negative
the
respondent's
contentions
instead of supporting them. The jdugment
also does not support the Respondent's
contention that if such an order is
questioned in a Court or the Tribunal , the
authority is obliged to justify the transfer by
adducing the reasons therefor. It does not
also say that the Court or Tribunal can
quash the order of transfer, if any of the
administrative instructions/ guidelines are
not
followed,
much
less
can
be
characterized as mala fide for that reason.
To reiterate , the oder of transfer can be
question in a Court or Tribunal only where
it is passed mala fide or where it is made in
violation of the statutory provisions."

16. The said view was further
reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Hydro-Electric Power
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sri Bhagwan and
another, AIR 2001 SC 3309.

17. Next argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
transfer order is against the principle of
natural justice as the same has been posted
during mid-session of the studies of his
son/daughter , is also got no force as in the
case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. Union of
India 2005 (2) ESC 1224 after considering
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Director of School Education
Madras and others Vs. O Karuppa
Thevan and another , 1996(1) UPLBEC
347 this Court has held as under:-

" The issue of transfer in mid academic
session was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and it was held that" the
fact that children of the employee are
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
studying should be given due weight, if the
exigencies of the service are not urgent."
Therefore, it is for the employer to examine
as to whether transfer of an employee can
be deferred till the end of the current
academic session. The Court has no means
to assess as what is the real urgency of
administrative exigency. Thus, the Court is
not inclined to consider this submission at
all."

18. The same view has been reiterated
by Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Gulzar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
other, 2006 (5) AWC 4755 and another
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
S.P. Jindal Vs. State of U.P. , 2002(1)
AWC 306 and also in the case of Jagendra
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009)
3 UPLBEC 2338.

19. For the foregoing reasons, I do not
find any infirmity or irregularity in
impugned
order
of
transfer
dated
05.11.2011 (Annexure No. 1) passed by
O.P. No. 1, as such the present writ petition
lacks merit and is dismissed.

20. However, petitioner, if so advised,
may move an application to the competent
authority for redressal of his grievances
which he has raised in the present case
within two weeks from the receiving a
certified copy of this order and after
receiving the same said authority may
decide the same expeditiously.

21. With the above observations, writ
petition is dismissed.

22. No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15338 of 1988

Rama Shanker

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.S. Saxena
Sri K.P. Shukla
Sri N.K.Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri D.K. Tiwari
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land
Holding
Act,
1960-Section
29
(a)-
Redetermination of surplus land-earlier
about 414.12 acre land was under
consideration
by
subsequent
notice
dated
05.03.1983-mentioned
596.66
acre-which goes to show same new land
added-justifying notice U/S. 29 but after
enforcement
of
amended
provision
requirement of Section 29 (2) of Act
1972-missing-impugned
orders-very
crypic, vague based total non application
of
mind-held
not
sustainable-matter
remitted back for reconsideration.

Held: Para 11

Both the authorities below on this issue
have simply referred that earlier the
total
area
under
consideration
was
414.12 acres while in the notice dated
05.03.1983 it was 596.66 acres, meaning
thereby some new land was added in the
notice,
hence
redetermination
was
justified under Section 29 but have not
pointed out whether the alleged new
land satisfy requirement of Section 29(a)
in addition to land he was already having
after the enforcement of U.P. Imposition