DG of Attached Office Vested with Delegated Powers is Competent to Frame and Execute Transfer Policies

The applicant, a Scientist ‘F’/Senior Director at the National Informatics Centre (NIC), challenged the constitutionality of the NIC Transfer Policy-2025 and a consequential Circular dated 24.04.2026.

The applicant, who has served over 30 years in Chandigarh and Panchkula, argued that the Director General (DG), NIC, lacked the competence to frame transfer policies for Group ‘A’ officers, asserting such power belongs solely to the Ministry (MeitY).

The applicant sought a stay on the implementation of the policy and the circular, which required officers to submit station preferences for rotational transfers.

1. Whether the Director General, NIC, possesses the legal competence to frame transfer policies and exercise transfer powers over Group ‘A’ officers under the Fundamental Rules.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to ad-interim relief staying the operation of the NIC Transfer Policy-2025.

Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 15 regarding the President's power to transfer government servants, and F.R. 6, which allows for the delegation of such powers.

Appendix 3 of the Fundamental Rules, which expressly delegates full powers under F.R. 15 to the Heads of Departments (HOD).

T.S.R. Subramanian Ors. v. Union of India (AIR 2014 SC 263) regarding the necessity of Transfer Committees.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402], establishing that transfer is an incident of service and policies serve as internal grievance mechanisms rather than enforceable rights.

Rajendra Roy v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 148] regarding the consideration of personal hardships by the department.

The Tribunal found that the DG, NIC, as the HOD of an attached office, is a competent authority by virtue of the delegation of power under F.R. 6 and Appendix 3.

The court rejected the claim of "patent illegality," noting that the applicant holds an "All India Transfer liability" and has remained in the same region for three decades.

The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the applicant's cited precedents, noting that a coordinate bench in Chandigarh had already upheld the DG’s competency in similar matters.

Applying the principles from Ram Sukhi Devi and Sandeep Kumar Balmiki, the court reasoned that granting a stay would effectively grant final relief at the interim stage without a full hearing, which is legally impermissible.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to decide the applicant's pending representations dated 25.03.2026, 23.04.2026, and 02.05.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. No order as to costs.