Facts
The applicant, a Deputy Director, Programme (DDP) at Akashwani, Jaipur, challenged a transfer order dated 21.04.2025, which directed her relocation to the Directorate General (DG), Akashwani, New Delhi
Source reference: p. 2The applicant sought quashing of the order on the grounds that she was due for superannuation on 31.07.2026, making the transfer effective only 15 months prior to her retirement
Source reference: p. 2She contended that this violated the Prasar Bharti transfer policy and was intended solely to accommodate Respondent No. 3
Source reference: p. 2The Tribunal initially stayed the transfer on 24.06.2025
Source reference: p. 3The respondents countered by stating there was an acute shortage of DDP-level officers, with only five such officers remaining in service nationally
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the transfer of an officer within two years of superannuation violates the departmental transfer policy when invoked under "administrative exigency"
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the impugned transfer order was vitiated by mala fides or intended to accommodate a specific individual
Source reference: p. 6-7Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied the Prasar Bharti Transfer Policy issued via Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021
Source reference: p. 4Clause 2(a) of the policy permits transfers based on "administrative requirements" to meet specific post requirements or expertise
Source reference: p. 4Furthermore, Clause 12(h) stipulates that while officers within two years of superannuation shall "normally not be transferred," a specific exception is carved out for cases of "administrative exigency or promotion"
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal analyzed the organizational staffing structure and noted that out of five DDPs, two retired in late 2025, and another was set to retire in March 2026
Source reference: p. 5-6It observed that after March 2026, only two DDPs would remain in the entire organization, including the applicant, who would be the last to retire in July 2026
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal reasoned that since New Delhi is a crucial station, the shortage necessitated the applicant’s presence there, which squarely falls under the "administrative exigency" exception of Clause 12(h)
Source reference: p. 6Regarding the allegation of mala fides to accommodate Respondent No. 3, the Tribunal found the claim baseless because Respondent No. 3 was of a lower rank (Assistant Director) and had already retired on 31.10.2025
Source reference: p. 7Consequently, the Tribunal determined the transfer was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the transfer was a valid exercise of administrative discretion necessitated by a genuine shortage of senior officers
It held that the protections against transfer near retirement are not absolute and are subject to the exigencies of service
Source reference: p. 5The Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
ARCHANA SINHAvsPRASAR BHARTI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in