Transfer Policy Only A Guiding Factor, Not Enforceable In Law; Can't Direct State To Transfer An Employee: Allahabad High Court
Sparsh Upadhyay
9 Jan 2026 1:43 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State authorities to transfer a government servant, as it noted that the transfer policy issued by the government is only for guidance and cannot be enforced through a court of law.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that the transfer and posting of government servants lie in the exclusive domain of the State Government and the courts cannot issue directions to transfer a particular employee to a specific place.
“...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 malafides or the orders are in violation of any statutory provision”, the bench remarked.
Case in brief
A writ petition was filed by one Ful Chandra seeking a Mandamus to the respondent authorities to transfer Respondent No. 6 (an Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat) from Block Safipur, District Unnao, to another district.
The petitioner also sought an inquiry into allegations made by the villagers against the said officer.
It was contended that Respondent No. 6 had been working in District Unnao since his initial appointment on February 1, 1997, and he had spent most of the time posted in Development Block Safipur.
It was alleged that this allowed him to be instrumental in siphoning government funds meant for village development.
The petitioner relied on the State Government's transfer policy (of May 2025), which purportedly mandates that a government servant who has completed more than seven years of service in one district must be transferred.
The petitioner argued that, because Respondent No. 6 had been in the district for decades, the State was under an obligation to transfer him in accordance with the policy.
On the other hand, the state government's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. He argued that the petitioner had not revealed how he was personally aggrieved by the non-transfer of Respondent No. 6.
The State contended that the transfer of a government servant lies in the exclusive administrative domain of the State Government, which takes decisions based on public interest and administrative exigencies.
It was further argued that the transfer policy contains only guiding factors and cannot be enforced by a writ petition, particularly when brought at the behest of a person with no concern for the employee's service conditions.
The State also clarified that the official's cadre was initially block-level (Village Development Officer) which necessitated his posting within the block. It was also apprised to the bench that he had been transferred to different blocks (Asoha and Safipur) in accordance with administrative requirements.
High Court's observations
The Bench, after hearing both parties, dismissed the petition as it noted that a third party cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to seek the transfer of a government employee.
The Court observed:
“This Court is of the view that the transfer of a government servant lies in exclusive domain of the State Government...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...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.”
Furthermore, on the specific issue of the Government Order concerning its transfer policy, the Court held:
“We are further of the view that the transfer policy issued by the State Government...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.”
The Court relied on certain Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), in which it was held that, unless a transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere. Guidelines do not confer a legally enforceable right upon an employee.
It also relied upon the case of Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar (1991), where the Top Court ruled that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions, courts should ordinarily not interfere and the affected party should approach higher authorities instead.
Against this backdrop, noting that the transfer and posting of government servants lies in the exclusive administrative domain of the State Government, the High Court dismissed the petition.
It added that it cannot issue directions to the State to transfer a government servant to a particular place.
Case title - Ful Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14