Allahabad High Court
Sampurna Nand Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 6 August, 2025
Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45644-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 238 of 2025
Appellant :- Sampurna Nand Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Anurag Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellant who is Rajasva Nirikshak has challenged judgment of writ court dismissing his writ petition challenging an order of transfer dated 14.06.2025.
3. By the order dated 14.06.2025 issued by Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Lucknow Division, Lucknow from the office of Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, appellant has been transferred from Lucknow to District-Unnao. The transfer order refers to transfer policy dated 06.05.2025 and some recommendation of District Magistrate, Lucknow in this regard. There are rules which govern transfer of revenue inspectors, namely, U.P. Sub-Ordinate Revenue Executive (Rajasva Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules, 2017'). Rule 13 thereof deals with transfer which reads as under:-
"13. (1) The persons appointed to the service shall be liable to be transferred throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Transfer of Rajasva Nirikshak withing a Sub-Division will be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Transfer from one Sub-Division to another Sub-Division withing the District will be made by the Collector of that district. Transfer from one district to another district within a division will be made by the Commissioner of that division in such a manner as not to alter the number of posts sanctioned by the Government in any district. The Board shall have the power of transfer of Rajasva Nirikshak within the State."
4. As per the aforesaid rule, if Rajasva Nirikshak is to be transferred from one district to another within a division, such transfers can be made by the Commissioner of that division in such a manner as not to alter the number of posts sanctioned by the government in any district.
5. The case of the appellant before us is that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the transfer order in this case was passed by Additional Commissioner (Admn.) and not the Commissioner of the Division. He submitted that when rules prescribed the manner of doing certain thing then it should be done in that manner alone. The other contention was based on the condition contained in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 regarding alteration of number of posts sanctioned by the government in district. It is also the submission that as per the transfer policy dated 06.05.2025 which is the basis for transfer order, firstly, as per para 5(1) thereof, transfers on administrative ground can be made only after seeking approval from the competent level. The competent level from which approval is required is mentioned in para 3(i) of the same policy and it is referred as head of the department. It is submitted that so far as revenue inspector is concerned, the head of the department is the Commissioner or Secretary, Board of Revenue but no such approval has been taken by the Commissioner of the Division but this aspect has been lost sight of or have not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge rendering its judgment susceptible to challenge in appeal and liable to be set aside.
6. Sri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, learned Standing Counsel says learned Single Judge has considered every aspect of the matter including the government policy and the rules and has expressed its opinion which is based on correct understanding of the facts and law, therefore, no exercise of discretion interfering with the said judgment should be made in an intra-court appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we are of the opinion that when there are statutory rules governing transfer of a government servant then it is the said rules which will hold the field vis-a-vis any transfer policy which may have been framed and the transfer policy will have to be read conjointly and harmoniously with the statutory rules and not in contradiction to it.
8. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 empowers the Commissioner of a division to transfer a Rajasva Nirikshak subject to only one condition that this transfer may not alter the number of posts sanctioned by the government in any district. A cursory reference is there in the writ petition about this condition but there is no data before us nor was it before the writ court based on which, any conclusion could be arrived at, even prima facie, that on account of the impugned transfer, the aforesaid position was altered in the district where the appellant was being transferred or where he was earlier posted. Therefore, this contention cannot be considered in these proceedings.
9. It is, however, made clear that if the condition mentioned in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2017 has been violated and the post position has been altered and if the appellant is able to make out a case on this ground, he can collect requisite information and approach the Commissioner of the Division pointing the aforesaid whereupon the said aspect and only that aspect would be considered by the Lucknow Division, Lucknow uninfluenced by the rejection of the appellant's writ petition and his appeal.
10. As regards the competence of the Additional Commissioner (Administration) to issue the transfer order, he is an officer posted in the office of Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and learned Single Judge has opined that he has merely issued the order that too after approval of the Commissioner of the Lucknow Division, therefore, it cannot be said that decision to transfer the appellant is not by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division. Of course, it would have been better if the order would have been issued by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow but this by itself does not persuade us to interfere with the writ court's judgment in exercise of our powers in an intra-court appeal. For all legal and practical purposes, the decision to transfer is that of Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
11. As regards the contention of Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage that the Commissioner cannot rectify the illegality, meaning thereby, the Additional Commissioner passed a wrong order which cannot be rectified by a post-facto approval, we do not find it to be a case of post-facto approval rather the approval precedes the transfer order, therefore, this contention is not acceptable.
12. As regards the contention that if the Rules provides certain thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner, we do not see as to how that principle applies in the facts of this case. Any and every error assuming it exists need not be a ground for interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the error is fundamental and results in grave miscarriage of justice or illegality of such a degree as to prick the conscience of the court to interfere that too in a transfer matter.
13. As regards reliance placed on para 5(1) / 3(i) of the transfer policy dated 06.05.2025, there is no such stipulation in the Rules for seeking approval of competent level/ Head of the Department when it comes to transfer of a Rajasva Nirikshak, therefore, purely on facts of this case, the said contention is not acceptable.
14. For all these reasons, subject to liberty aforesaid, we do not see any valid ground for quashing the impugned judgment in an intra-court appeal, substantial justice having been done.
15. Subject to the above, the special appeal is dismissed.
(Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 6.8.2025
Shanu/-
