An employee has no right to remain posted indefinitely at one station.

The applicant, an Assistant Director (Finance) in the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), had served at the Chandigarh/Ropar station since 1997 and had not previously been transferred.

Her husband was employed at Mohali, and she relied on her own medical condition and the illnesses of her mother and mother-in-law.

By order dated 24.03.2026, she was transferred from NIELIT Ropar to NIELIT Ajmer and was relieved on 30.03.2026.

She challenged the transfer, contending that the respondents had not constituted a Civil Services Board, had failed to consider the DoPT instructions on spouse posting and medical grounds, and had acted discriminatorily.

Her representations dated 25.03.2026 were rejected through communications dated 01.04.2026 and 24.04.2026.

An earlier O.A. No. 418/2026 challenging the transfer had been withdrawn on 05.05.2026; the respondents disputed that any liberty had been granted to institute fresh proceedings.

During the present proceedings, it was not disputed that the applicant had joined at Ajmer, that this was her first transfer after approximately 29 years, that she had undertaken to serve anywhere in India under the NIELIT transfer policy, and that NIELIT was a pan-India organisation.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 24.03.2026 and the relieving order dated 30.03.2026 were liable to be quashed for violation of the NIELIT transfer policy, the requirement of consideration by a Civil Services Board, or the DoPT instructions concerning spouse posting, medical grounds and compassionate considerations.

2. Whether the rejection communications dated 01.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 were arbitrary, non-speaking or otherwise legally unsustainable.

3. Whether the applicant could claim continuation at Ropar or posting at a nearby station despite the administrative requirement, the transferable nature of her post and her undertaking to serve anywhere in India.

4. Whether the fresh O.A. was maintainable after withdrawal of the earlier O.A. challenging the same transfer order.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications before the Tribunal.

It relied on the settled principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident and condition of service, and that an employee has no legal right to remain posted indefinitely at one station; judicial interference is warranted only where the transfer is vitiated by mala fides, violation of a statutory provision, or comparable illegality.

This principle was drawn from National Hydro Electrical Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, AIR 2001 SC 3309.

The applicant relied on T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 82/2011, decided on 31.10.2013, and the DoPT O.M. dated 02.07.2015 concerning transfer policies and Civil Services Boards, as well as DoPT O.Ms. dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022 concerning posting of spouses.

She also invoked S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 1243/2022, decided on 10.03.2022, regarding consideration of spouse posting, disability, medical and compassionate grounds while framing transfer policies.

The Tribunal ultimately accepted the respondents’ position that the DoPT guidelines were not shown to be applicable to the employees of NIELIT, an autonomous society, and assessed the transfer under the applicable NIELIT transfer policy.

The Tribunal found no legally sustainable ground for interference.

The applicant had remained at the same station for approximately 29 years, and the respondents stated that her transfer to Ajmer was made in the organisational and operational interest of NIELIT, particularly because an equivalent employee at Ajmer was due to retire on 31.05.2026.

Her post was transferable throughout India, and she had expressly undertaken, upon promotion in December 2025, that she could be transferred anywhere in the country under the NIELIT transfer policy.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had no vested right to continue at Ropar merely because her husband was posted at Mohali or because she relied on personal medical and family circumstances.

The respondents had considered and rejected her representation by referring to organisational requirements and the NIELIT policy, and the applicant failed to establish mala fides, discrimination, violation of a statutory rule or breach of the applicable transfer policy.

Her prior relieving from Ropar and subsequent joining at Ajmer further militated against granting the requested relief.

Although the respondents raised a maintainability objection based on the earlier O.A., the dismissal was ultimately based on the absence of merits in the challenge to the transfer.

It held that the transfer from NIELIT Ropar to NIELIT Ajmer was an administrative decision within the employer’s authority, was consistent with the transferable nature of her service and the applicable NIELIT policy, and was not shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or otherwise illegal.

The challenge to the transfer order dated 24.03.2026, relieving order dated 30.03.2026 and rejection communications dated 01.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 was therefore rejected.

The O.A. was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.