Administrative transfers deviating from governing policy without rational justification are arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The applicants, serving as Fire Fighting Staff (Fireman, LHF ‘A’, FED ‘A’), were rendered surplus following the closure and disbandment of the Central Vehicle Depot (CVD), Delhi Cantt, and Ordnance Depot (OD) Shakurbasti

Consequently, the respondents issued redeployment/transfer orders dated May 27, 2023, purportedly in accordance with Record Office Instruction (ROI) C/01/2022 dated May 10, 2022

The applicants challenged these orders, alleging they were issued in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner without considering their options or choices for postings within a 50 km radius, as allegedly permitted under the ROI and granted to other staff

The respondents contended the transfers were in the public interest to optimize staff distribution and were based on seniority and tenure

1. Whether the impugned transfer/redeployment orders warrant interference through judicial review in service matters

2. Whether the respondents adhered to the Record Office Instructions dated May 10, 2022, while issuing the impugned orders

3. Whether the impugned action is arbitrary or discriminatory, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

4. To what relief, if any, are the applicants entitled

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and a prerogative of the employer based on administrative exigencies (Union of India v. S.L. Abbas)

However, judicial review is permissible if an order is vitiated by mala fides, violates statutory provisions, or deviates from binding administrative guidelines (State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal)

Articles 14 and 16 inhibit arbitrariness and ensure fairness in State action (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India)

An authority is bound to adhere to its own self-imposed standards and policies to ensure transparency and uniformity (Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd.)

The Tribunal observed that while the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is narrow, administrative discretion is not unbridled and must conform to fairness and reasonableness

Upon reviewing the record, the Tribunal found that the respondents failed to demonstrate a uniform and transparent application of the ROI dated May 10, 2022

Specifically, there was no evidence that the applicants’ options were sought or considered as required by the policy

The Tribunal noted that the respondents allowed some similarly situated employees to remain while transferring the applicants without providing a rational, objective, or consistent criterion for such differential treatment

This selective application of policy and lack of transparent decision-making was deemed an arbitrary exercise of power that failed the test of Article 14

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned transfer orders dated May 27, 2023, regarding the applicants

The matter was remitted to the respondents to conduct a fresh redeployment exercise strictly per the ROI dated May 10, 2022, ensuring consideration of the applicants' choices, seniority, and parity with other employees

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned speaking order within eight weeks, maintaining the status quo of the applicants’ postings until that time

The Original Application was allowed without an order as to costs