Shekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

(1) Heard Shri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

(2) The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

¶13

“(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06-08-2025 passed by opp. party no-2, as contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opp. Parties particularly opp. party no-2 to re-consider the transfer of petitioner to District- Etawah from District-Unnao considering the

¶15

2

¶16

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶17

government 06th May 2025 order no1/2025/119/ सामान्य / सैतालि�स - का -4-2025-1/3/95 in para5(iii) & 5(iv) which clearly said that the husband and wife if both are in government service then they both should be posted at same District and disability of more than 40% is to be considered as a ground of transfer.”

¶18

(3) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Senior Assistant, was transferred from Kanpur Nagar to District Unnao in the year 2024 and was posted at Community Health Centre (CHC) Purwa, District Unnao where he joined on 06.08.2024. Prior thereto, the petitioner had joined service on the post of Junior Assistant on 16.03.2009 and was posted in the Office of Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad, where he worked from 16.03.2009 till 02.07.2013. Subsequently, he was transferred to District Etawah, where he joined on 06.07.2013 as Junior Assistant in the Office of Chief Medical Officer, Etawah. During his posting in District Etawah, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and continued to work there till 23.01.2021 for almost ten years. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Kanpur Nagar, where he joined on 21.07.2023 at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, as Senior Assistant and worked there till 05.08.2024.

¶19

(4) Upon his transfer to District Unnao, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.7695 of 2025 seeking a direction to authority concerned for his transfer from District Unnao to District Etawah on the ground that his wife is also in government service and is posted at District Etawah, relying upon paragraph 5 of the transfer policy issued by the State Government vide order dated 06.05.2025, which provides for posting of the spouse at the same place as far as possible. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 with a direction to the Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, U.P. to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. In

¶20

3

¶21

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶22

furtherance thereof, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 20.07.2025, which, after due consideration, was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶23

(5) The petitioner, while challenging the order dated 06.08.2025, has referred to paragraph 5(iii) and 5 (iv) of the Government Order to submit that the transfer policy itself provides for posting of husband and wife in the same district if both are in government service and also provides that, in case of disability of more than 40% of any family member, such employee should be exempted from general transfer. Relying upon the aforesaid clauses of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he should be transferred back to District Etawah, where he was earlier posted, since his wife is under pregnancy and is serving in District Etawah on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM)/ Basic Health Worker (BHW) and the mother of the petitioner is 40% disabled.

¶24

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the order dated 06.08.2025, respondent No.2 did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspects and passed the impugned order without proper consideration of the difficulties being faced by the petitioner, as highlighted in his representation dated 20.07.2025.

¶25

(7) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the instant case, has submitted that the petitioner’s home district is Etawah, where he remained posted for almost ten years, i.e., from 06.07.2013 to 27.07.2023. Thereafter, he worked for one year in District Kanpur Nagar and for the last one year since 06.08.2024, he has been posted in District Unnao. It has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner seeking posting at a specific place at District Etawah is not justified,

¶26

4

¶27

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶28

particularly when he has already remained posted there for ten years and it is also his home district.

¶29

(8) It has further been submitted by state counsel that as per the Government Order dated 11.06.2024 relating to Annual Transfer Policy for the year 2024-25, provision existed for transfer of 10% of the employees belonging to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ cadres on the basis of the duration of their posting at a particular place. Keeping in view of the said policy, the petitioner, having rendered maximum service in the category of peripheral clerical cadre in Kanpur Division, was transferred to District Unnao, which falls within Lucknow Division and is nearer to his earlier posting in Kanpur Division.

¶30

(9) It has further been submitted that considering the fact that mother of the petitioner is disabled and his wife is also in government service and posted in District Etawah, the petitioner was transferred to the nearby District Unnao falling within Lucknow Division vide office order dated 28.06.2024.

¶31

(10) Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that in District Unnao there are 65 sanctioned posts in the clerical cadre, against which only 30 personnel are presently working and 35 posts are lying vacant. As such, the transfer of the petitioner to District Unnao is also in administrative exigency keeping in view the requirement of work.

¶32

(11) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, the issue before this Court is whether the claim of the petitioner, relying upon the transfer policy for being posted at the place where his wife, who is also a government servant, is posted, is justifiable and whether such provision in the transfer policy is binding upon the government authorities.

¶33

5

¶34

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶35

(12) It is well settled law that transfer of a government servant falls exclusively within the domain of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take decisions regarding transfer and posting of employees at particular places keeping in mind public interest and administrative exigencies. The transfer policy issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 06.05.2025 merely contains guidelines for carrying out annual transfers of government servants and the provisions of the said transfer policy are not enforceable in a court of law.

¶36

(13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 has held that transfer and posting of government servants is exclusively within the domain of the State Government and it is not for the court to interfere in an order of transfer unless it is demonstrated that the transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. The Court cannot issue directions to the State Government to transfer or post a government servant at a particular place. Paragraph 7 of the judgment rendered in S.L. Abbas (supra) is reproduced herein below :

¶37

“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordered the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."

¶38

6

¶39

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶40

(14) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 has held that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or guidelines issued for the purpose of transfer, the Court ordinarily should not interfere unless the transfer order is demonstrated to be vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of any statutory provision. Paragraph 4 of the judgment rendered in Mrs. Silpi Bose (supra) is reproduced herein below :

¶41

“4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."

¶42

(15) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 423 observed in para 22 as follows :

¶43

“ 22. We are impressed by the track record of the appellant and the uninhibited acknowledgement and acclaim of his calibre and credentials even by the respondents in spite of the serious unsubstantiated accusations made by the appellant against them. The future (sic further) promotions earned by the appellant in due course are recognition of his merit

¶44

7

¶45

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶46

and the assurance that his needless excursion into the arena of litigation to challenge a mere transfer not detrimental to his career prospects has fortunately not had any adverse influence against him.”

¶47

(16) Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ful Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others [Writ-C No.10470 of 2025] while adverting to the transfer policy dated 06.05.2025 which has been heavily of relief claimed in the instant writ petition, held as hereunder in para 15 of the judgment :

¶48

“15. This Court is of the view that the transfer of a government servant lies in exclusive domain of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take decision regarding transfer and posting of its employees at particular places keeping in mind the public interest and the administrative exigencies. It may be true that the petitioner and other persons have filed certain complaints against working of Respondent No. 6 and respondent-authorities may consider those complaints and may take decision for transfer of Respondent No. 6 from one place to another but petitioner, who is not at all personally aggrieved by non-transfer of Respondent No. 6, cannot be allowed to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for transfer of Respondent No. 6 out of the district. We are further of the view that the transfer policy issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 06.05.2025 is in the form of guiding factors for the officers concerned to carry out annual transfers of the government servants but the provisions of the said transfer policy cannot be enforced through court of law. ”

¶49

(17) Thus, it is well settled through various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that transfer and posting of the government servants falls exclusively within the administrative domain of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take into account various factors keeping in view public interest and exigency. Therefore, the Court cannot issue any direction to the

¶50

8

¶51

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶52

State Government to transfer a government servant to a particular place nor can it interfere with an order of transfer unless it is shown that the order is vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of any statuary provision.

¶53

(18) In the present case, the respondents have successfully demonstrated that the transfer of the petitioner to District Unnao is in administrative exigency, as the personnel working in the clerical cadre in District Unnao are far below the sanctioned strength of 65. Against the sanctioned strength of 65 posts in the clerical cadre, only 30 personnel are working and 35 posts are lying vacant. As such, the transfer of the petitioner to District Unnao is in administrative exigency.

¶54

(19) The transfer of the petitioner has also been made keeping in mind the fact that he had remained posted in Kanpur Division for more than 11 years and particularly in District Etawah for almost ten years and, therefore, as per the transfer policy, he has been transferred to another Division, namely, Lucknow Division. While transferring the petitioner to Lucknow Division, the authorities have also taken care of the petitioner’s difficulties and have posted him at Unnao, which is nearby to District Kanpur Nagar where he was earlier posted prior to his posting at Unnao.

¶55

(20) The transfer order does not suffer from any mala fide and no such allegation has been levelled by the petitioner. The issue raised by the petitioner regarding the pregnancy of his wife also no longer survives after the birth of the child and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said difficulty still persists.

¶56

(21) The transfer is a condition of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at the place of his choice. If he is transferred from one place to another in public interest, no legal right of the employee is

¶57

9

¶58

WRIA No. - 9428 of 2025

¶59

infringed. The order of transfer is an administrative order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has held that the scope of judicial review in the matters of transfer is very limited.

¶60

(22) Thus, this Court is of the view that the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶61

(Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.)

¶62

May 15, 2026 Shubhankar

¶63

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shekhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 3 Others

Ruprani vs Registrar of Firms Societies and Chit Funds Lucknow Mandal,Lucknow and 5 Others

Surya Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Raghunath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Shiv Ram Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Harnam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 2 Others