An employee has no right to transfer between separate establishments absent an enabling provision.

The appellant participated in recruitment for Forester, was provisionally selected under the GTWT category for the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, accepted the appointment, and joined duty on 12 June 2017.

After taking maternity leave and later being transferred on her request, she sought appointment in the Forest Department, asserting that she had opted for that Department during recruitment.

Her request was rejected.

The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, and she appealed.

1. Whether the appellant’s stated preference for the Forest Department gave her a right to appointment or transfer there after she accepted and joined a Forester post in the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited.

2. Whether the asserted difference in promotional avenues, or the ground on which her request was rejected, entitled her to appointment or transfer to the Forest Department.

The Court applied the terms and conditions of the relevant recruitment notification and rules governing appointment to the Forest Department and the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited.

It held that expressing a preference does not create a vested right to appointment or transfer to the preferred establishment after accepting and joining a different appointment; in the absence of an enabling provision, an employee cannot claim a change of service between establishments.

Differences in promotional avenues, by themselves, do not confer such a right.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent.

The appellant had accepted the Corporation appointment and joined service, while the recruitment notification distinguished the Corporation from the Forest Department.

The Court found no rule or notification provision permitting transfer from the Corporation to the Forest Department.

Her preference and the asserted difference in promotional prospects therefore could not establish a right to appointment or transfer; the Court found no basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s dismissal.

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.