Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow on August 22, 2007 whereby the High Court although upheld the order of the transfer of Karvendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Writ Petitioner") but quashed the order of transfer of Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Respondent No. 5"). Both, Writ Petitioner and Respondent No.5, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court and hence, these two appeals by special leave.

1.2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-II has been transferred to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner before the High Court of Allahabad, Bench Lucknow. While challenging the legality of the transfer order, Writ Petitioner set up the grounds that he joined as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, Sadar-IV only a month back; that the transfer order has been issued on the complaint of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti, Lucknow and that the order of transfer was arbitrary, stigmatic and suffers from non-application of mind. The Writ Petitioner also set up the case that Respondent No. 5, who has been transferred in his place as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad-IV did not have good service record; that there was vigilance enquiry pending against Respondent No. 5 on charges of corruption and that his service record bears adverse entry in the year 2005.

2.3. Respondent No. 5 as well as the State Government vehemently opposed the writ petition. On behalf of the State Government, it was submitted that although a complaint came to be received from one Radhey Lal against the Writ Petitioner but Ghaziabad-IV being an important Sub-District from the point of view of registration of deeds/instruments as well as revenue collection, the transfer of Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II was done on administrative grounds. The State Government emphatically refuted the allegation of mala fides and denied that the order of transfer was stigmatic or punitive.

3.4. Respondent No. 5 filed a separate counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition. He set up the plea that he has rich experience as Sub-Registrar having worked at places such as Allahabad, Kanpur, Varanasi and Ghaziabad. He stated that vigilance enquiry against him has been closed and his appeal against the adverse entry made in his service record in 2005 is pending and that pending disposal of that appeal, no effect has been given to the said adverse entry.

5. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice

nor can he insist 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 of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also 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 position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402].

4.6. 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.

In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 532), this Court held :

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