Authorities must decide transfer-policy representations objectively and by a reasoned order within the prescribed period.

The petitioner, a Deputy Collector posted at Balodabazar-Bhatapara, challenged the State’s order dated 29 September 2026 transferring him to Bastar.

He alleged that the transfer failed to account for his prior service in Scheduled and difficult areas, his age and ex-serviceman status, and his wife’s ongoing medical needs; he also asserted non-compliance with the applicable transfer policy.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 30 September 2026.

The State opposed the petition, relying on administrative exigency and submitting that the representation should be considered under the policy’s grievance mechanism.

Whether the transfer order warranted judicial intervention when the petitioner’s grievance had been submitted for consideration under the transfer policy’s internal mechanism.

Whether the petitioner’s representation should be decided by the authorities, and if so, in what manner and within what timeframe.

Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 5 June 2025 provides an internal mechanism for employees aggrieved by a transfer: a representation, accompanied by the transfer order and clear grounds alleging violation of the policy, may be placed before the designated committee within 15 days of the transfer order; after examining the matter in light of the policy, the committee forwards its recommendation to the concerned department.

The Court also directed that the representation be decided objectively, by a reasoned order, within the period prescribed by Clause 8 and in accordance with law.

Because the petitioner had already made a representation under Clause 8, and the policy provided a mechanism for the authorities to examine transfer-related grievances, the Court declined to adjudicate the transfer challenge at that stage.

It did not determine whether the transfer violated the policy or whether the petitioner’s personal and medical circumstances justified a different posting; instead, it required the authorities to consider the representation objectively and give reasons.

It directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation objectively, by a reasoned order, within the timeframe prescribed under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy and in accordance with law.