Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143703 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6105 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Adityendra Singh as well as Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2025 passed by Commissioner, Aligarh Division Aligarh whereby petitioner who has been working on the post of Senior Assistant at Tehsil Aliganj, district Etah has been transferred from district Etah to Collectorate Hathras. Assailing the order impugned, it is argued by learned Senior Advocate that petitioner being a district cadre employee could not have been transferred from one district to another district as it entailed adverse civil consequences to him; firstly, he is loosing his seniority upon being transferred to another district; and secondly he is in regular cadre itself for which he was working and now being transferred to different cadre to which he has been transferred, he had not consented . It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Commissioner Aligarh Division Aligarh does not enjoy any authority to transfer the employee of district cadre from one district to another district. Personal affidavit has been filed in the matter by Smt. Sangeeta Singh, presently posted as Commissioner, Aligarh Division Aligarh, in which heavy reliance has been placed upon Service Rules, 1980 framed for the revenue department and brought into force vide Committee notification dated 7th February, 1981. It is argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, transfer of an employee from one district to another district chiefly in the cadre vide Rule 27 of the Rules. Rule 27 of the Rules are reproduced hereunder: "27- स्थानान्तरण-एक ही कायार्लय में एक पद से िकसी अन्य पद पर स्थानान्तरण िजला अिधकारी द्वारा िकया जायगा। एक ही प्रभाग में एक िजले से िकसी अन्य िजले में स्थानान्तरण आयुक्त द्वारा िकया जा सकता है। िकसी एक प्रभाग से अन्य प्रभाग में स्थानान्तरण राजस्व पिरषद द्वारा या राजस्व पिरषद के अनुमोदन से सम्बिन्धत प्रभागों के आयुक्तों के बीच हुई पारस्पिरक व्यवस्था करके िकया जा सकता है। ऐसे स्थानान्तरण करने में सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर िनधार्िरत नीित का अनुपालन िकया जायगा। " It is thus sought to contend that order has been passed exercising power under Rule 27 of the Rules and hence petitioner cannot be permitted to take the plea that Commissioner was not vested with power to transfer him from one district to another. Sri Khare has further taken the Court to the definition of Cadre vide Rule 4 (2), which provides for number of vacancies in a district as is approved by the Governor from time to time and vide Sub rule 2, the member of service in a cadre of a district shall remain same and will not change until there is direction to that effect. Sri Khare has also referred to the seniority clause given under the Rules that preparation of seniority for the purposes of promotion both in the cadre of Group C and in cadre of Group D employees, which is district-wise, inasmuch as, seniority will be fixed on the basis of the date of substantive appointment. Regarding exercising power under Rule 27 as prescribed under the Rules, Mr. Khare submits that in the event an employee cannot be transferred from one district to another district upon being transferred he will be losing his cadre which district base and losing seniority consequently and hence exercise of power under Section 27 is not absolute and should be exercised upon request of an employee. Meeting the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel qua Rule 27 of the Rules that have been relied upon, learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the definition Clause 3 of the Rule that defines Appointing Authority and according to which, appointing authority in respect of office of Superintendent is Commissioner whereas for recruitment of other posts, it is the District Magistrate. Upon a pointed query being made as to interpretation as put-forth by learned Senior Advocate to the provisions contained under the Rules 27 by referring to district cadre and the definition given as Appointing Authority under the rules, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not produce any other government order or circular order or any office memorandum to the contrary. In view of above, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that once employee is a member of service which is a district cadre based, then transfer of employee from one district to another district would cause him to loose loose his seniority. In so far as the ground assigned for transfer that there were of complaints against the petitioner, in the considered view of the Court, a disciplinary authority should not shy away from WRIA No. 6105 of 2025 2 taking any action under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules and should not adopt to a bypass made of transfer, such an employee which would be bad for being a punishment in the nature and such transfers are held illegal vide judgment of Supreme Court. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25th April, 2025, transferring the petitioner from one district to one district to Hathras by Commissioner Aligarh is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall continue to remain posted at district Etah and shall be paid salary. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Sanjeev WRIA No. 6105 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad