STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus SIYA RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 05-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
SIVA RAM AND ANR. 
AUGUST 5, 2004 
B 
{ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Transfer of employee on administrative ground-(;hallenge to-
C Allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held : Transfer of an employee 
appointed against transferable post is a condition of service necessary in 
public interest and efficiency in public administration-Employee cannot 
claim as a matter of any legal right to be posted at a particular place of 
his choice-No material available to link the transfer with the outcome of 
departmental proceedings pending against-No mala tides could be 
D attributed to the order of transfer-Hence, Order of High Court indefensible. 
Respondent-employee was transferred from one place to another 
by the employer-State Government on administrative ground. Re-
spondent challenged the Order, which was quashed by the High Court 
E on the ground that it was punitive in nature and had been passed by 
the State Government without awaiting the decision in the disciplinary 
proceedings against the employee. Hence the pritsent appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. No Government servant or employee of a public 
undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one 
particular place or place of his choice since transfer of an employee 
appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place 
to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary 
G too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless 
an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of ma/a fide exercise 
or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such 
transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with· 
such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate 
H authorities substituting their own decision for that. of the employer/ 
348 
STATE v. SIYA RAM [PASAYAT, J.) 
349 
management, as against such orders passed in the interest of admin- A 
istrative exigencies of the service concerned. (350-D, E, F) 
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan & 
. Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 574 and Union of India & Ors. v.Janardhan Debanath 
& Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 243, relied on. 
1.2. The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was 
connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota 
B 
of material to arrive at the conclusion. No ma/a fides could be 
attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in 
public interest. In view of the settled position in law the judgment of C 
the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. j350-H; 351-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5005 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.2003 of the Allahabad High D 
Court in Writ Petition No. I 557 (SB) of 2002. 
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Appellant. 
Rajesh Kumar for the Respondents. 
E 
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
While respondent No. I was functioning as an Executive Engineer F 
(Mechanical), Irrigation Division-I, Government of U.P., he was trans-
ferred from the Tubewell Division-I, Ghazipur to the office of Joint Chief 
Engineer, Tubewell East, Faizabad. The transfer order dated 23.10.2002 
shows that the transfer was on administrative grounds. 
The said order of transfer of respondent No. I having been quashed G 
· by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, State ofU.P. is in appeal. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court question-
ing the order of transfer. The primary stand taken in the writ application 
was that the order of transfer was as a measure of punishment. An enquiry 
in a departm.ental proceedings had been initiated. Without affording him H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A an opportunity of being heard, the transfer was done as a measure of 
punishment. The disciplinary action which was taken against respondent 
No. I pursuant to the enquiry conducted was referred to the Uttar Pradesh 
Public Service Commission for approval. But it was not approved. The 
present appellant-State filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the 
B transfer of the writ petitioner was on administrative grounds and merely 
because the writ petitioner was transferred to a non-working post that did 
not in any way vitiate the order of transfer. 
The writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment

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