STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus GOBARDHAN LAL

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,,-l 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOBARDHAN LAL 
·MARCH 23, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
.. 
Service Law: 
Transfer-Government Employees-Conditions of service-Government c 
employee filed a writ petition challenging his transfer order-High Court 
directed employee to file a representation before the Chief Secretary for 
appropriate orders-Correctness of-Held: Transfer of Government employees 
is incidental and implicit in the terms of appointment-Unless the order of 
transfer was an outcome ofmala fide exercise of power, such transfer order 
should not be lightly interfered with-Competent authority empowered to D 
transfer Government employees in public interest-High Court not entitled to 
give general directions to State Government in the matrer of transfer or 
promotions/appointment of Government employees-High Court's order set 
aside. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2004 
E 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging his transfer order. The High Court disposed of the writ petition 
by directing the respondent to make a representation to the Chief 
Secretary as to his grievances and also made a consequential direction to F 
the Chief Secretary to dispose of the same. Hence the appeal. 
., ~ 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2004 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the promotion of and appointment of the appellant as Director G 
of U.P. Local Fund and Audit Department. The High Court disposed of 
the writ petition directing the appellant, the respondent and any other 
person concerned to make a representation to the Chief Secretary for 
appropriate orders. Hence the appeals. 
337 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to 
contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, 
he should continue in such a place or position. as long as he desires. 
Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of 
B appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the 
absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or 
conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an 
outcome of a ma/a fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory 
provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do 
C 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 transfers or containing 
transfer policies at 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 
D transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as 
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. This Court has 
often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of 
E administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not 
confer any legally enforceable rights, unless shown to be vitiated by ma/a 
fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. [344-A-DI 
2. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed 
and should not be countenanced by the Court or Tribunals as though they 
F are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties 
of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. 
This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own 
decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the 
State and even allegations of ma/a fides when made must be such as to 
inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and 
G ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration 
borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing 
reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of 
transfer. (344-E-G [ 
H 
3. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the-parties 
). 
-
~ 
STATE v. GOBARDHAN LAL [RAJU . .I.] 
339 
~' 
·concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the iitbuilt pow

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