Courts cannot interfere with transfers absent mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

The applicant, a UDC posted at The Infantry School, Mhow, was transferred to JL Wing, Belgaum under the Turn Over Scheme for Defence Civilian Employees by order dated 11 February 2023. He challenged the transfer, contending that it violated the Standard Operating Procedure dated 1 January 2023, particularly the requirement of considering employees according to seniority and the provisions concerning medical hardship. He also challenged the rejection of his representation dated 20 February 2023 and the movement order dated 20 March 2023.

The respondents maintained that the transfer was made in accordance with the SOP and administrative requirements. They explained that four senior UDCs had not been considered because one was nearing retirement, one had sought compassionate posting, and two were within the zone of promotion. The respondents further relied on para 11(j) of the SOP, which empowered the competent authority to post any Defence Civilian Employee between JL Wing and the Infantry School under the Turn Over Scheme. The applicant had joined at JL Wing, Belgaum on 2 April 2023.

Whether the applicant’s transfer from The Infantry School, Mhow to JL Wing, Belgaum violated the seniority-based and other requirements under the SOP governing the Turn Over Scheme?

Whether the transfer and rejection of the applicant’s representation were arbitrary, mala fide, or otherwise liable to judicial interference?

Whether the applicant was entitled to relief after joining at the transferred place pursuant to the movement order?

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident and condition of service, and that no government servant has a legal right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial review of a transfer order is limited and is generally permissible only where the order is shown to be mala fide, contrary to a statutory provision, or in violation of a binding governing norm.

Under para 11(j) of the applicable SOP, the competent authority could post any Defence Civilian Employee between JL Wing and the Infantry School under the Turn Over Scheme, and its directions were final.

The Tribunal relied on State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, AIR 2004 SC 4121, for the proposition that transfer is generally a condition of service and should not ordinarily be interfered with.

The Tribunal relied on High Court of Judicature at Madras v. R. Perachi, (2011) 12 SCC 137, for the principle that personnel-management decisions must ordinarily be left to departmental authorities unless vitiated by mala fides or infraction of a governing statutory or professed norm.

The Tribunal accepted that the transfer was made under para 11 of the SOP and held that para 11(j) vested broad discretion in the competent authority to transfer employees between Mhow and Belgaum according to administrative requirements.

Although the applicant alleged breach of the seniority requirement under para 11(b) and failure to properly consider his cardiac ailment under para 11(e), the Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation regarding the non-transfer of the four senior employees and found no sufficient basis to conclude that the applicant’s transfer was mala fide or contrary to a statutory prohibition.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had remained at Mhow for approximately 20 years without undergoing posting at JL Wing, Belgaum, and had already joined the transferred post on 2 April 2023.

Applying the restricted scope of judicial review over transfer matters, it declined to substitute its assessment for that of the departmental authorities.

Original Application No. 148 of 2023 was accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 31 March 2023 was vacated, and there was no order as to costs.