Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the transfer of a Lower Division Clerk (Stores) employed in the Canteen Stores Department, Ministry of Defence, from Jaipur Depot to Head Office (Secretariat Branch), Mumbai. The petitioner joined service on 14.12.2018 at Bathinda, was transferred to Jaipur on 27.03.2023, and then was transferred to HO Mumbai by order dated 03.02.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation which was dismissed on 06.05.2025, leading to multiple proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. In O.A. No. 230/2025, the Tribunal quashed the order dated 06.05.2025 and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order on the representation. The respondents then passed a speaking order, referred to in the judgment as dated 13.05.2025 and also as impugned speaking order dated 30.05.2025. The petitioner challenged that order in O.A. No. 307/2025, which the Tribunal dismissed on 26.05.2026. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution was filed against that dismissal. The legal issues before the High Court were whether the transfer order was vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness, whether the transfer policy's longest stayee and choice station norms were mandatory, whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the transfer, and whether the transfer was retaliatory due to the petitioner's complaints regarding bonus and RTI queries. The petitioner argued that he was appointed only for Stores Department, that the transfer policy required adherence to longest stayee and choice station, that senior employees at Jaipur were not considered, that no administrative exigencies were shown, and that the transfer was vindictive. The respondents, as recorded in the Tribunal's order, contended that the transfer was made due to shortage of staff at Headquarter (Secretariat Branch) Mumbai, that organisational requirements override transfer policy norms, that most of the 25 employees listed by the petitioner were not LDC Stores, and that all employees have all-India service liability. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner and perusing the record, reiterated settled principles that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain at a particular station. It observed that a writ court can interfere only if the transfer order is mala fide or beyond the competence of the issuing authority. It referred to decisions in Sheela Suryavanshi, B. Varadha Rao, Shilpi Bose, and Rajendra Roy, and quoted from Rajendra Roy that courts and tribunals should not interfere unless the order is passed mala fide or in violation of service rules and guidelines without proper justification. The court also noted the model employer principle but explained that it does not prevent the employer from deploying staff based on organisational needs. The available text ends before the final operative order; therefore, the ultimate outcome of the writ petition is not ascertainable from the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Incidence of Service - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station; a writ court can interfere only if the transfer order is mala fide or beyond the competence of the issuing authority - The petitioner challenged transfer from Jaipur to HO Mumbai; the court examined settled principles and limited its review accordingly (Paras 10-12). B) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Administrative Exigencies Override Longest Stayee and Choice Station - Transfer Policy Guidelines - The norm of 'longest stayee and choice station' is not absolute but subject to administrative exigencies and organisational requirements; the competent authority reserves the right to override or relax provisions depending on exigencies - Tribunal held that organisational and functional requirement is overriding and the transfer was made due to shortage of staff at Headquarter, Mumbai (Paras 3, 5-7). C) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference in Transfer Orders - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Courts and tribunals should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are passed mala fide or in violation of service rules and guidelines without proper justification; personal difficulties are matters for the department - The High Court reiterated that in a transferable post, transfer is a normal consequence; only mala fides or lack of competence justifies judicial intervention (Paras 10-12). D) Service Law - Model Employer - Obligation of Fair Treatment - Government and Public Sector Undertakings are expected to function as model employers with high probity and equal treatment; however, this does not override the employer's right to deploy staff based on organisational needs - The court acknowledged the model employer principle but found no material showing mala fides in the transfer (Paras 11-12). E) Service Law - All India Service Liability - Transfer Distance Not a Ground for Interference - The petitioner accepted pan-India transfer liability as a condition of service; transfer over 1200 km cannot be challenged solely on distance when undertaking given - The court/Tribunal rejected the contention that distance from Jaipur to Mumbai made transfer invalid because the petitioner had accepted all-India service liability (Paras 3, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing O.A. No. 307/2025 and upholding the transfer of the petitioner from Jaipur to HO Mumbai, given allegations of violation of transfer policy, mala fides, and arbitrariness
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- employee has no vested right to a particular posting
- writ court under Articles 226/227 can interfere only on mala fides or lack of competence
- transfer policy guidelines are not mandatory and subject to administrative exigencies
- organisational requirement overrides longest stayee and choice station
- courts should not interfere with transfer orders absent proper justification
