Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction for respondent authorities to transfer Respondent 6 to another district on the ground that since long, he was working in one block and thereby he had been vital in embezzlement of government fund meant for development of different villages, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., held that the transfer and posting of government servant lies in exclusive administrative domain of the State Government and Courts cannot interfere with government servant transfers unless the orders are vitiated due to malice or are in violation of any statutory provision.
Background
In February 1997, Respondent 6 was initially appointed as Village Development Officer in Unnao and in July 2021, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat). Thereafter, he was transferred to the development block – Asoha. Then, in May 2022, he was transferred to the development block – Safipur.
The petitioner alleged that Respondent 6 had been instrumental in embezzlement of government funds under different development schemes and time and again, different persons submitted complaints in respect of his working. He was alleged to have been taking advantage of his long posting and experience in development block – Safipur and being crucial in siphoning government funds which were meant for the development work of the villages.
In May 2025, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a Government Order whereby transfer policy for the transfers of government servants for the year 2025-26 was enforced. It stated that if a government servant had completed more than seven years of service in one district, he would have to be transferred to another district. The petitioner contended that despite repeated representations made by various persons, State-respondents did not transfer him out of the district.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that “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.”
The Court viewed that the provisions of the transfer policy issued by the State Government could not be enforced through court of law as it was in the form of guiding factors for the officers concerned to carry out annual transfers of the government servants.
The Court thus, stated that by now, it has become well settled law that the transfer and posting of government servant lies in exclusive administrative domain of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take into account various factors keeping in mind the public interest and administrative exigencies and thereafter, to transfer the government servants but the Courts cannot either issue direction to the State Government to transfer a particular government servant to a particular place nor it can interfere in the orders of transfer of the government servants unless it is shown that the orders are vitiated due to malice or the orders are in violation of any statutory provision.
Hence, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Ful Chandra v. State of UP, 2026 SCC OnLine All 18, decided on 7-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari, Alok Shukla, Amar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: C.S.C.