A transfer representation must receive a reasoned decision addressing the employee’s material contentions.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 30 June 2026 transferring him from his existing place of posting and a subsequent order dated 27 July 2026 rejecting his representation against the transfer.

In an earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 26170 of 2026, the High Court had directed the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within four weeks.

The petitioner contended that the subsequent rejection order merely reproduced the operative portion of the earlier judicial order and rejected the representation without considering any of his submissions or assigning reasons.

His representation relied, inter alia, on his permanent 50% disability, supported by a disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Dewas, and on a recommendation dated 8 July 2026 by the Commissioner, Divyangjan, Madhya Pradesh, for cancellation of the transfer under Clauses 28 and 29 of the Transfer Policy and the Divyangjan Niyam, 2017.

The State defended the orders on the ground of administrative exigencies.

1. Whether the order dated 27 July 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation was legally sustainable when it did not consider the grounds raised in the representation or provide reasons for rejection.

2. Whether the petitioner’s transfer order dated 30 June 2026 was liable to be interfered with in view of his permanent disability and the recommendation of the Commissioner, Divyangjan.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making, holding that an administrative authority deciding a representation affecting an employee’s rights must apply its mind to the relevant contentions and pass a reasoned, or “speaking,” order.

Relying on M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Court reiterated that reasons are generally required even in administrative decisions that affect a person prejudicially; reasons restrain arbitrary exercise of power, demonstrate consideration of relevant factors, facilitate judicial review, and must be cogent, clear and succinct rather than merely “rubber-stamp reasons”.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s disability under the applicable Transfer Policy and the Divyangjan Niyam, 2017, particularly Clauses 28 and 29, as well as the recommendation of the Commissioner, Divyangjan.

Although reasons are ordinarily not required for making a transfer, once a representation against the transfer is directed to be considered, the authority must address the grounds raised and explain why they cannot be accepted.

The Court found that the authority had not genuinely considered the petitioner’s representation.

The order dated 27 July 2026 merely recorded compliance with the earlier direction and rejected the representation, without addressing the petitioner’s disability, the supporting medical certificate, the Commissioner’s recommendation, or the applicable policy provisions.

This demonstrated non-application of mind and violated the requirement of a reasoned decision under the principles of natural justice and Kranti Associates.

Although the State relied on administrative exigencies and the Court acknowledged that a transfer order ordinarily need not contain reasons, the authority was nevertheless required to deal with the specific grounds once it was directed to decide the representation.

In view of the respondents’ failure to do so, and considering the petitioner’s permanent disability, the Court proceeded to consider the merits and found that the transfer could not be sustained insofar as it affected the petitioner.

Considering the petitioner’s permanent disability and the relevant recommendation in his favour, the Court also quashed the transfer order dated 30 June 2026 to the extent that it related to the petitioner.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of, with a certified copy to be issued as per the rules.