A transfer violating approved policy and effected by an incompetent committee is invalid.

The applicant, Jayashree Talwar, was functioning as Deputy Director (Headquarters) Incharge at the Dattopant Thengadi National Board for Workers Education and Development. By transfer order dated 22 May 2025, she was transferred from Delhi to Mangalore as Regional Director.

She challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Ministry-approved Transfer and Posting Guidelines, which required consideration by a specified Transfer/Posting Committee comprising senior officers, including the Director, Additional Director, Deputy Director (Headquarters), and the senior-most Zonal Director.

The applicant contended that the prescribed Committee had not been validly constituted because the post of Additional Director was vacant and the Deputy Director (Headquarters) post was held by her.

An interim order protecting the applicant had earlier been granted on 13 June 2025; the Tribunal thereafter heard the OA together with the respondents’ application for vacation of interim relief.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 22 May 2025 was invalid because it was made without a duly constituted Transfer/Posting Committee as required by the Ministry-approved Transfer and Posting Guidelines.

2. Whether the involvement of a Level 10 Education Officer and the nomination of that officer to the Transfer/Posting Committee rendered the transfer process incompetent or legally invalid.

3. Whether the respondents could rely on the subsequent abolition of the post of Deputy Director (Headquarters) to justify the transfer order issued before such abolition.

4. Whether the transfer was vitiated by colourable exercise of power or mala fides arising from the simultaneous transfers and postings of several officials.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and courts or tribunals should not interfere unless the order violates statutory provisions or binding administrative guidelines, is issued by an incompetent authority, or is vitiated by mala fides or colourable exercise of power.

The Ministry-approved Transfer and Posting Guidelines required a Transfer/Posting Committee for Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ officers consisting of the Director, Additional Director, Deputy Director (Headquarters), and senior-most Zonal Director, with an additional SC/ST member where applicable.

The Tribunal relied on E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, for the principle that administrative power must be exercised honestly, bona fide, reasonably, and in public interest, and not for an extraneous or oblique purpose.

Paragraph 19 of the Transfer Guidelines permitted relaxation only in exceptional or extraordinary cases and after due consideration; such relaxation could not be presumed or used without recorded justification.

The Tribunal held that the transfer policy prescribed specific senior designations for the Transfer/Posting Committee and required the Committee to apply its mind before recommending transfers.

On the date of the impugned order, the post of Deputy Director (Headquarters) had not formally been abolished; the formal abolition occurred only on 2 June 2025. Therefore, the respondents could not retrospectively treat the post as nonexistent or disregard the Committee structure applicable when the transfer order was issued.

The Tribunal found that the nomination of Shri Aditya Bhattacharya, a Level 10 Education Officer, by Shri Karnail Singh was not shown to be authorised by the applicable duty structure or approved by the Ministry.

His participation could not substitute for the senior officers expressly contemplated by the Guidelines, particularly when the applicant was holding an assignment carrying the equivalent of Level 13 responsibilities while being a Level 12 officer.

The respondents’ reliance on the Chairperson’s relaxation power was rejected because no material demonstrated that the case involved an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or that a reasoned relaxation had actually been granted.

The simultaneous movement of the applicant, Shri Bhattacharya, Shri Karnail Singh, and Shri Ramesh M. Madavi on 22 May 2025 raised a strong prima facie concern that officials may have facilitated mutually advantageous postings.

Although the Tribunal refrained from making a definitive finding of mala fides, it held that the circumstances lent weight to the applicant’s challenge and reinforced the conclusion that the transfer process was procedurally defective.

Any alteration of the Ministry-approved policy based on the shortage of senior officers required Ministry approval, which had not been obtained.

It held that the transfer order dated 22 May 2025 was issued in violation of the applicable Transfer and Posting Guidelines and through an improperly constituted Transfer/Posting Committee.

The subsequent abolition of the Deputy Director (Headquarters) post did not cure the defect in an order issued before that abolition.

The OA was accordingly allowed, the impugned transfer order was quashed and set aside, and the interim protection granted on 13 June 2025 was made absolute.

The connected MAs were disposed of, with no order as to costs.