RAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

,\ 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 243 
RAJENDRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4975 of 2009) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service Law- Transfer-= t.,;mited scope of judicial review 
A 
B 
- 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. 
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. 
D 
'·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. 
Allowing the appeal of 'R' while dismissing the 
appeal of 'K', the Court 
HELD: 1. A Government Servant has no vested right 
F 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.