Employee transfer orders are not judicially reviewable unless vitiated by malafide or statutory violation.

The applicant, Zahida Heena, was initially appointed as a Rahbar-e-Taleem (ReT) and subsequently regularized as a Teacher in the respondent department.

Due to medical ailments, she was working in Zone Bandipora.

An order dated 24.10.2026 was issued by the Chief Education Officer, Bandipora, seeking to relieve the applicant from Zone Bandipora, which led her to approach the Hon'ble High Court of J&K.

The High Court, in SWP No. 1623/2016, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders, resulting in the applicant being retained at GMS Town Bandipora.

The applicant underwent a surgical procedure in 2020 and was advised by doctors to avoid long-distance travel, especially uphill and downhill movements, as supported by a medical certificate (Annexure A-5).

The impugned order dated 23.02.2026, issued by the Deputy Chief Education Officer, Bandipora, cancelled her deployment in Zone Bandipora and directed her to report to her original place of posting in Education Zone Gurez.

The applicant challenged this order on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of settled service norms.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.02.2026, cancelling the applicant's deployment in Zone Bandipora and directing her to report to her original place of posting in Education Zone Gurez, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of settled service norms?

2. Whether the applicant should be allowed to continue in District Bandipora considering her medical condition, her husband's disability status, and earlier competent authority orders?

The court recognized that an employee does not have an absolute right to choose their place of posting, and transfer is an exigency of service.

It emphasized that courts have limited power to interfere in transfer matters unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions.

However, if an employee has a genuine grievance regarding transfer, they can represent it to the competent authority, who is obligated to consider and dispose of the representation on its merits.

The court noted that the R.e.T. scheme's concept aimed to provide doorstep education in far-flung areas and that allowing every teacher to seek a posting of their choice would negatively impact educational standards in such regions.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's challenge to the impugned order based on her medical condition and the purported lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief Education Officer.

However, it noted that the impugned order was passed with the approval of the competent authority.

The Tribunal underscored the well-settled principle that an employee cannot claim a right to a posting of their choice, citing numerous Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that transfer is an exigency of service and judicial review is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations.

Despite this, the Tribunal considered the applicant's genuine grievance, particularly her medical condition and her husband's disability status, and decided that the appropriate course of action was to direct the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation.

This approach allows the competent authority, the Director School Education Kashmir, to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with the law, ensuring that the applicant's specific circumstances are duly considered.

The Director, School Education Kashmir, as the competent authority, was mandated to decide this representation on its merits within three weeks, in accordance with applicable law, and to consider the judgment in *Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K & Ors.*

For a period of three weeks, the impugned deployment order was stayed, allowing the applicant to continue in District Bandipora.

The registry was to be informed of the disposal within this period, with any delay attributable to the Directorate of School Education Kashmir.