A government employee has no enforceable right to posting near a spouse absent statutory entitlement.

The petitioner, a Police Inspector transferred from Rajnandgaon District to Surajpur District by order dated 20 August 2026, sought amendment of the transfer on the ground that his wife, also a government employee, was posted at Nava Raipur.

After the High Court directed the authorities to decide his representation, the Police Establishment Board rejected it on 1 October 2026, stating that the transfer policy dated 5 June 2025 did not apply to the Home (Police) Department. The petitioner challenged both orders, alleging arbitrariness and discrimination, and sought posting at his wife’s station or a nearby station.

Transfer is an ordinary incident of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial review of transfer orders is limited and ordinarily permits interference only where the order contravenes a statutory provision, is vitiated by mala fides, or is otherwise arbitrary.

The Court also applied the principle that an employee must demonstrate an enforceable legal right to claim a particular posting; the fact that other employees’ transfers were allegedly amended does not, without particulars establishing that they were similarly situated in all material respects, establish such a right.

The Board considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected it because the cited transfer policy did not apply to the Home (Police) Department. The petitioner identified no statutory provision or service rule granting him a right to be posted with his wife or nearby, and the alleged amendments to other employees’ orders were unsupported by particulars showing that those employees were similarly situated.

The Court further found no material establishing arbitrariness, mala fides, or statutory violation; the Board had also complied with the earlier direction to decide the representation.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.