5 min readNew DelhiMay 21, 2026 04:30 PM IST
First published on: May 21, 2026 at 04:30 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has held that a government employee does not have any vested right to remain posted at a place of their choice, while dismissing a teacher’s challenge to the transfer order.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan made the observation while refusing to interfere with a teacher’s transfer order passed by a district basic education officer, Fatehpur.
“It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service and a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his or her choice,” the court noted in its order dated May 18.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan refused to interfere with a teacher’s transfer order.
Plea against transfer
- The court was dealing with a writ petition seeking the quashing of a teacher’s transfer ordered by the district basic education officer, Fatehpur.
- At the outset, the counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner has been transferred to a different school within the same block.
- It was further stated that without joining at the said place, the petitioner approached the court.
- It was contended that in view of the settled position of law, unless the petitioner joins at the place of transfer, no relief can be granted to him.
- The counsel further argued that the petitioner has been transferred, considering the relevant government order, which was not annexed to the petition.
- The court was informed that, on the request of counsel for the petitioner, time was granted to the petitioner to join at the transfer place, but the petitioner did not join.
Court refuses relief
The court observed that a transfer order is administrative in nature and that judicial interference can be made only where the transfer is shown to be mala fide.
“A transfer order, being administrative in nature, does not violate any legal right when made in public interest or for administrative reasons. Judicial interference is warranted only where the transfer is shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions,” the court remarked.
The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in SC Saxena v. Union of India and others, where the apex court had held that a government servant cannot disobey the transfer by not reporting at the place of posting.
The top court had further stated that it is his duty to first report for work, and if he has some difficulty / personal problem, he can make a representation after joining his new place of posting.
The high court emphasised that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation.
The Supreme Court had held, “A government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.”
The high court therefore ruled that non-compliance with the transfer order by the petitioner is impermissible in law.
“The petitioner is under a legal obligation to report for duty at the new place of posting, and any personal inconvenience or hardship may be brought to the notice of the authorities only after such joining,” the court said.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
Orissa High Court’s ruling
In another case, the Orissa High Court upheld the removal of a Bank of Baroda officer who refused to comply with a transfer order, citing the need to care for her aged parents.
Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash of the Orissa High Court were hearing the appeal of Itishree Nath, a bank officer, and criticised the plea of violation of natural justice, observing that it cannot be chanted like a “Vedic mantra” and that such a plea is a “senseless sound” unless supported by “substance”.
“Ordinarily, the employees in public service, like the one in this case, are expected to join the places to which they are transferred in due course. It hardly needs to be stated as to what all difficulties the public service of banking would suffer when employees defy transfer orders with the intent to cling on to the same place,” the Orissa High Court said on April 21.
Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with transfer order of a teacher. (Image generated using AI) 
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan refused to interfere with a teacher’s transfer order.
Share
