A three-year request-transfer tenure clause does not bar earlier administrative transfer on serious disciplinary grounds.

The petitioner, a civilian employee of the Indian Navy, joined as Examiner (A) at Mumbai on 29 June 2015 and was transferred to Arakkonam on 1 January 2024.

On the ground that Tamil Nadu’s climatic conditions aggravated his dry psoriasis, he sought and obtained an “on request” transfer to the Defence Standardisation Cell, Badarpur, New Delhi, on 31 July 2025.

By order dated 21 April 2026, the Directorate General of Naval Armament Inspection transferred him from Delhi to Kerala on administrative grounds.

The respondents alleged persistent misconduct, insubordination, behavioural issues, poor interpersonal relations and disruption of the working environment at the Delhi unit, supported by service records and official correspondence.

The petitioner challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, relying principally on paragraph 5(f) of the 5 August 2005 Transfer Policy, which stated that personnel transferred on request were liable to be transferred out after approximately three years at the request station.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on 11 August 2026, following which the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether paragraph 5(f) of the 5 August 2005 Transfer Policy prohibited the petitioner’s transfer from Delhi before completion of three years at the request station.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer to Kerala was contrary to the applicable transfer policies or otherwise liable to be set aside as arbitrary, mala fide, punitive or legally invalid.

Whether the High Court, exercising judicial review under Article 226, ought to interfere with the Tribunal’s refusal to set aside the transfer order.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and judicial interference is limited to cases involving mala fides, violation of statutory provisions or breach of an applicable transfer policy; administrative guidelines generally do not create an enforceable right to remain at a particular station, as recognised in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402.

Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148, was also relied upon regarding the restricted scope of review in transfer matters.

Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592, establishes that a transfer founded on an unverified anonymous complaint, or made in lieu of punishment, may be vitiated by malice in law.

Conversely, X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 187, recognises that a transfer in contravention of an applicable transfer policy may be invalid.

Under paragraph 2(a) of the 11 August 2015 Policy Guidelines for Transfer of Civilian Personnel, transfers on administrative grounds may be made in public interest based on organisational requirements, including on serious disciplinary grounds.

Paragraph 5(f) of the 5 August 2005 policy was construed as creating liability to transfer after approximately three years, not as imposing an absolute prohibition on an earlier transfer.

The Court held that paragraph 5(f) of the 2005 policy was limiting rather than prohibitory: it identified the point after which a person transferred on request became liable to be moved out, but did not guarantee a three-year minimum tenure in all circumstances.

The 2015 policy was also applicable as a general framework, particularly since the petitioner’s own transfer to Delhi had been granted under that policy, and the two policies were not inconsistent.

The respondents had relied not on an anonymous or unverified complaint, but on service records, official reports and correspondence alleging serious behavioural and disciplinary problems at the Delhi establishment.

Although the petitioner disputed those allegations, the Court clarified that it was not conducting a fact-finding or merits review of his conduct; it was only examining the legal validity of the transfer.

In view of the alleged disruption at a sensitive tri-service establishment, the transfer fell within “administrative grounds” and “serious disciplinary grounds” under paragraph 2(a) of the 2015 policy.

The case was therefore distinguishable from Somesh Tiwari and did not involve the policy violation found in X.

It held that the 2005 policy did not confer an absolute right to remain in Delhi for three years and that the transfer to Kerala was consistent with the applicable transfer framework, having been made on administrative grounds supported by the respondents’ material.

Finding no mala fides, statutory or policy violation warranting judicial intervention, the Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

It clarified that the judgment expressed no opinion on the truth of the allegations against the petitioner and was confined to the legality of the transfer decision under Article 226.