An employee cannot choose a posting location absent violation of applicable transfer guidelines or governing law.

The petitioner, a driver-cum-conductor with NWKRTC, was accused of issuing excess Shakti Yojana tickets to inflate revenue and obtain an additional incentive of ₹2,044.

His suspension was revoked pending inquiry, but the Managing Director ordered his transfer from Chikkodi Division to Hirekerur Unit in Haveri Division, citing the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the need to protect the Corporation’s administration.

The petitioner challenged the transfer order under Articles 226 and 227, relying on Standing Order No. 18/2025 and Guideline No. 7, which he said required transfer to another depot within the same division after suspension was revoked.

The High Court initially stayed the transfer, then considered the parties’ arguments and dismissed the petition.

1. Whether the Corporation’s order transferring the petitioner to another division after revocation of his suspension was unlawful or contrary to the applicable standing order and guidelines.

2. Whether the transfer order warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to review administrative action.

An employee generally has no right to choose a particular place of work; a transfer may be interfered with where it violates an applicable statute or operative guideline.

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 109118/2025, which held that reinstatement does not entitle an employee to select a workplace and that a transfer is not objectionable absent violation of operative guidelines or governing law.

The petitioner also relied on Standing Order No. 18/2025, Guideline No. 7, concerning transfer following revocation of suspension.

The Court treated the present case as factually identical to W.P. No. 109118/2025 and applied that decision’s principle that an employee cannot insist on a chosen workplace unless the transfer contravenes an applicable guideline or statute.

It accepted the Corporation’s explanation that the petitioner’s alleged misconduct could influence other employees and disrupt administration if he remained in the same division, and found that the transfer order stated reasons for moving him to another division.

Although the petitioner relied on Guideline No. 7, the Court concluded that the order disclosed no infirmity and did not warrant interference.

The Court dismissed the writ petition.

The requested certiorari and consequential mandamus were therefore not granted.