Five-year tenure protection applies only to rotational transfers, not administrative transfers.

The petitioner, appointed as Chief Engineer by Haldia Dock Complex in 2012, was serving as General Manager (Engineering) at HDC after joining there on 23 March 2024, following an earlier posting at Mumbai Port.

After undergoing major cardiac surgery in 2022, he had sought a home posting in Kolkata, but his request was initially declined.

The respondents introduced a transfer policy for HOD-level officers in major port trusts on 29 July 2024.

By order dated 13 July 2026, the petitioner was transferred from HDC to Cochin on “administrative grounds”.

He contended that the transfer violated Clause 7.2 of the policy because he had served at HDC for only about two years and four months, whereas the policy allegedly prescribed a five-year tenure.

His demand for justice dated 17 July 2026 received no response.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from HDC to Cochin before completion of five years violated the applicable transfer policy, particularly Clause 7.2.

Whether the transfer was liable to be invalidated on the ground of mala fide, discriminatory treatment, or the petitioner’s medical condition.

Whether the Court ought to interfere with the transfer order in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and judicial interference is justified only where the order violates a mandatory statutory rule or is vitiated by mala fide.

Mere allegations of mala fide, without specific pleadings and substantial proof, are insufficient.

Under the applicable transfer policy, rotational transfer under Clause 7.2(a), administrative transfer under Clause 7.2(b), and transfer on request under Clause 7.2(c) are distinct categories governed by separate parameters.

The five-year tenure requirement applies to rotational transfers and does not prevent an administrative transfer before completion of five years under Clause 7.2(b).

The Court also relied on N.K. Singh v. Union of India, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar for the principles that transfer orders should rarely be interfered with, that no employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and that personal hardship alone is insufficient absent illegality or mala fide.

The Court held that the impugned order expressly described the petitioner’s transfer as one on administrative grounds and therefore fell under Clause 7.2(b), not Clause 7.2(a), which governed rotational transfers.

Since the five-year restriction was not applicable to administrative transfers, the petitioner’s service of only two years and four months at HDC did not render the transfer contrary to policy.

The Court further found no specific pleading or evidence establishing mala fide, institutional bias, discrimination, or an ulterior motive; the advertisement for filling the petitioner’s former post did not establish illegality.

His medical condition also did not justify interference because he had continued working after surgery and was not being transferred to a place lacking medical facilities.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review in service-transfer matters, the Court concluded that the transfer was neither contrary to the policy nor otherwise legally invalid.

No mala fide, statutory violation, or other ground warranting judicial interference was established.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, the subsisting interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs.