A requested intra-district transfer does not reset tenure; a later transfer after the prescribed period is not premature.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), was appointed on 14 March 2024 and posted at Shahabad.

At his request, he was transferred to Afzalpur by order dated 22 September 2025 and assumed charge there on 9 October 2025.

By an official memorandum dated 13 November 2025, respondent No. 7 was posted to Afzalpur in his place, while the petitioner’s posting was not specified.

The petitioner challenged the order as a premature transfer and sought to remain at his existing place until completing the two-year minimum tenure under the transfer guidelines dated 7 June 2013.

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s earlier move was an internal transfer within the same district and that his tenure should be reckoned from his initial posting.

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer under the memorandum dated 13 November 2025 was premature, having regard to the applicable two-year tenure and his earlier transfer from Shahabad to Afzalpur.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to provide the petitioner with a posting.

The Court applied the applicable transfer guidelines, under which the tenure for the petitioner’s Group-B post was two years.

It treated the petitioner’s transfer from Shahabad to Afzalpur, made at his request and within the same district and headquarters, as an internal transfer that did not restart the calculation of his tenure.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution; the judgment cites no specific statutory provision beyond that jurisdictional basis and no judicial precedents.

The Court noted that the petitioner had requested and obtained the move to Afzalpur, and that both Shahabad and Afzalpur were within the same district and headquarters.

It therefore declined to treat that move as restarting the petitioner’s tenure for purposes of the two-year transfer period.

On the facts and the respondents’ explanation that respondent No. 7 was posted to the Afzalpur post, the Court found no ground to interfere with the challenged transfer as premature.

Separately, it recorded the respondents’ submission that steps would be taken to provide the petitioner a posting and directed respondent No. 3 to do so without delay.

It directed respondent No. 3 to take immediate steps to provide the petitioner with a posting.