Courts shall not interfere with administrative transfers unless vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations.

The applicant in OA 790/2025, a Divisional Accounts Officer (DAO) Grade-II, was posted in Rewa since March 2022.

On July 26, 2025, he was transferred to Sidhi.

He challenged this order, asserting that his first three preferences were ignored and that his father’s medical condition necessitated a posting in Rewa, as permitted under Para 4(e) and 4(f) of the Transfer Policy.

The applicant in OA 866/2025 was transferred to Rewa to replace the first applicant.

However, due to an interim stay granted to the first applicant on August 12, 2025, the second applicant was temporarily shifted to Sidhi via an order dated August 22, 2025, to resolve administrative and salary disbursement issues.

The official respondents contended that the first applicant had already served in Rewa for six of the last nine years and that senior officials had been allotted his other preferred stations.

1. Whether the transfer order dated July 26, 2025, moving the applicant in OA 790/2025 from Rewa to Sidhi, was vitiated by illegality or non-compliance with the transfer policy.

2. Whether the temporary posting of the applicant in OA 866/2025 to Sidhi should be set aside upon the vacation of the interim order in the connected matter.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and an essential condition of employment; an employee holds no vested right to be posted at a specific station.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav (1995) 3 SCC 270, the Tribunal reiterated that courts should not interdict administrative transfers unless they are vitiated by mala fides, extraneous considerations, or a lack of factual foundation.

The Tribunal found that the Transfer and Posting Committee had appropriately exercised its discretion.

Regarding the first applicant, the Committee declined a Rewa posting because he had already spent a significant portion of his career (six out of the last nine years) there, and his second and third choices were filled by senior officials.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s reliance on his father’s illness did not create a legal right to remain in Rewa, especially when administrative exigencies and seniority considerations prevailed.

Consequently, the transfer was deemed a routine administrative action devoid of illegality.

Regarding the second applicant, the Tribunal noted that his temporary transfer to Sidhi was a direct consequence of the interim protection granted to the first applicant; once the primary challenge failed, the temporary arrangement lost its justification.

Conversely, it allowed OA No. 200/866/2025, quashing the temporary posting order dated August 22, 2025.

The respondents were directed to facilitate the reciprocal postings of both applicants as per the original order dated July 26, 2025.

No costs were awarded.