Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35478 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18660 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Mohd. Aqueel Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.,K.K.Rao Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel and Mohd. Aqueel Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Piyush Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Shri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State. It is contended that the petitioner has been transferred in the teeth of Clause 10 of the transfer policy. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the Superintending Engineer. The transfer order has been passed by the Chief Engineer who is an authority higher to the disciplinary authority/authorized authority. In this wake it cannot be stated that approval from the superior authority was not taken. There is another aspect to the controversy. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the transfer order by instituting Writ A No. 15695 of 2024. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed on 03.10.2024 with the following directions: "4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to petitioner to make fresh representation before respondent No.3 within two weeks from today against the transfer order and, if he does so, the same shall be disposed of by means of a reasoned and speaking order within further period of two weeks." The petitioner has made a representation on the strength of the aforesaid order before the Chief Engineer. The said representation has been duly considered and rejected by the impugned order. All the issues raised in the representation have been duly considered and adverted to in the speaking order passed by the Chief Engineer. The petitioner has been posted at the same division for the past 17 years. It is high time for him to be transferred outside the division. There is no violation of transfer policy or orders passed by the Supreme Court. It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service. The scope of judicial review in regard to transfer is limited. The order of transfer can be assailed on the limited grounds of malafides or infraction of statute. The said grounds are not established. No employee has a vested right to be transferred to any place of his/her choice. The transfer policy does not confer any enforceable rights upon the petitioners. No interference is warranted in the impugned order of transfer. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the petitioner is posted in another division in the same district i.e. Agra. The contention of the petitioner that his son is suffering from disability does not come to his aid in as much as the petitioner has been posted in the same district. It is informed that the petitioner has since joined the place of posting. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad