The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer of an employee is an administrative decision and should not be interfered with unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or mala fides.

JUDGMENT :

1. This case has been nominated to this Bench under the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Himanshu Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. Shri Ram Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 20.10.2023, whereby the State Government, on the ground of exigency of work, has transferred the petitioner from district Agra to district Saharanpur with a direction to immediately join the transferred post.

4. While assailing the transfer order, it has been argued that just three months ago, the petitioner was transferred from district Farrukhabad to district Agra and, therefore, the order impugned having been hurriedly passed, is seriously prejudicial to the petitioner's interest, as he has just settled at district Agra. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is suffering from heart disease and he may be transferred to any place, either at Prayagraj or any other nearby location. He has further contended that three posts are vacant in district Prayagraj and has also placed reliance upon an order dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 8487 of 2023 (Anar Singh vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Anubhag 3 and another), whereby a direction was issued to the State Government to decide the concerned petitioner's representation and till the disposal of the representation, joining pursuant to the impugned transfer order has been stayed.

5. All the learned counsel representing the respondent side submit that the order of transfer has been passed on the ground of exigency of work and for administrative reasons and, therefore, no interference is warranted.

6. It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that "the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another".

7. In the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 72, the petitioner was Auxiliary Nurse Midwife posted at Bowstead Zanana Hospital at Barh. She was transferred to Urban Family Welfare Centre, Danapur. She challenged her transfer in Patna High Court by filing writ petition, which was dismissed in limine. In her special leave petition the Supreme Court declined to interfere with order of High Court but authorities were directed to consider her grievance and until decision was taken, her transfer order was stayed. The Supreme Court ruled as under:

"2. .....Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The courts cannot interfere in such matters. ...."

8. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider a short point whether an order of transfer is appealable under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Supreme Court held that transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a speci