Courts should not interfere with transfer orders absent statutory violation or established mala fides.

The applicant, a Chief Electrical Engineer in the North Central Railway and a member of the Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE), challenged the transfer order dated 15 September 2026 transferring him from North Central Railway, Prayagraj, to Eastern Railway, Kolkata, in the same capacity, along with the relieving order dated 17 September 2026.

He contended that the transfer was mala fide, intended to accommodate another officer, contrary to the Railway’s Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31 August 2015, and prejudicial to him as an SC/ST officer.

The respondents stated that the applicant had already been relieved and replaced by another officer, and that he had concealed two earlier proceedings—O.A. Nos. 999 of 2022 and 1117 of 2022—in which earlier transfer orders had been cancelled after consideration of his representations.

They further submitted that the applicant had remained posted in North Central Railway since 30 April 2005, held an all-India transferable post, and had no vested right to remain at Prayagraj.

Whether the transfer order dated 15 September 2026 and the relieving order dated 17 September 2026 were liable to be quashed on the grounds of mala fides, violation of transfer-policy guidelines, personal hardship, spouse employment, or the applicant’s SC/ST status.

Whether the applicant had a legal or vested right to remain posted at North Central Railway, Prayagraj, or to secure posting at a particular station under the applicable administrative instructions.

Whether the Tribunal ought to interfere with the transfer when the applicant had been transferred from a transferable post in the interest of administrative exigency and had not impleaded the officers against whom mala fides were alleged.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and that an employee holding a transferable post has no legal or vested right to remain posted at a particular place, as stated in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433.

Relying on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Rajendra Rai v. Union of India, 1993 (1) SCC 148, and Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 704, the Tribunal held that judicial interference is ordinarily justified only where a transfer violates a statutory rule or is proved to be mala fide.

Under Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, judicial review is limited to examining the legality and reasonableness of administrative action; the Court or Tribunal cannot substitute its own view for that of the competent authority.

The Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31 August 2015, including provisions concerning tenure and posting of spouses, was treated as an executive guideline rather than a statutory rule, conferring no enforceable right to a particular posting.

The Tribunal also relied on S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890, for the principle that an employee should first join at the transferred station and thereafter submit a representation regarding personal difficulties.

The applicant occupied an all-India transferable IRSEE post and had remained in North Central Railway since 30 April 2005, including by virtue of relief granted in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the transfer-policy provisions regarding minimum tenure and spouse posting were administrative guidelines and did not create a statutory entitlement to remain at Prayagraj or to obtain posting at a preferred station.

The applicant’s personal circumstances, including his wife’s employment, his daughter’s education, distance from his native place, and alleged SC/ST-related discrimination, did not establish violation of a mandatory rule.

The allegation of mala fides was also found insufficient because the officers against whom mala fides were alleged had not been impleaded, making the allegation incapable of proper adjudication on the record.

In view of the limited scope of review over transfer orders, the administrative nature of the decision, and the applicant’s repeated earlier litigation concerning retention at North Central Railway, the Tribunal declined to substitute its judgment for that of the competent authority.

However, following S.C. Saxena, it granted liberty to the applicant to first join at the transferred place and thereafter submit a representation to the competent authority.

The competent authority was directed to consider, sympathetically, his request for posting at the Railway Board, CRIS, RDSO at New Delhi, or North West Railway, Jaipur.

No order as to costs was made.