Frequent premature transfers do not warrant judicial interference absent mala fides or statutory violation.

The applicant, a Patwari, challenged order No. 16-DCS of 2022 dated 26 May 2022, whereby he was transferred and posted as Patwari, Halqa Anchar, Tehsil Eidgah, Srinagar.

He contended that the transfer violated the applicable transfer policy because he had not completed the minimum two-year tenure, the prescribed transfer calendar had been disregarded, and he had been subjected to multiple transfers within approximately one year.

The Tribunal initially stayed the operation of the impugned order, insofar as it affected the applicant, on 2 June 2022.

The applicant had earlier been transferred from the Regional Director, Survey and Land Records, to Halqa Barthana on 24 December 2021, suspended and attached following allegations of unauthorised absence, and subsequently reinstated after an inquiry.

He was then posted to Halqa Zoonimar on 27 April 2022 and transferred to Halqa Anchar within about one month.

The respondents justified the transfer on administrative grounds, including the sensitive nature of Halqa Zoonimar, anti-encroachment operations, and the Tehsildar’s recommendation dated 7 May 2022.

The applicant alleged that the transfer was intended to accommodate respondent No. 5 and constituted harassment or an extraneous exercise of power.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant submitted a representation citing the death of his wife, responsibility for a minor child and aged parents, and his status as the sole earning member of the family.

Connected contempt proceedings concerning implementation of the interim order were ultimately closed after the respondents reported that the applicant had been permitted to join and had been deputed to another office.

Whether the transfer order dated 26 May 2022 was liable to be quashed because it violated the prescribed minimum tenure and transfer calendar applicable to the applicant?

Whether the applicant’s successive transfers within a short period established mala fides, victimisation, or an extraneous purpose, including an intention to accommodate respondent No. 5?

Whether the Tribunal, in exercise of limited judicial review, could interfere with the competent authority’s decision regarding the applicant’s place of posting and administrative exigencies?

Whether the applicant’s representation dated 10 June 2022 required consideration by the competent authority?

Transfer is an incident of service, and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place.

Judicial review of a transfer order is limited and ordinarily permits interference only where the order is passed by an incompetent authority, violates a statutory provision, or is vitiated by mala fides, victimisation, or other legally impermissible considerations.

The Tribunal relied on Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, for these principles.

Administrative instructions prescribing minimum tenure or a transfer calendar generally do not confer an absolute or indefeasible right to remain at a particular station, although premature transfer must not be used to conceal mala fide or legally impermissible action.

The Tribunal also applied Syed Hilal Ahmad & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 1476/2014, decided on 31 August 2015, holding that such transfer instructions are administrative in character.

Allegations of mala fides must be supported by specific pleadings and material evidence and cannot rest on mere assertion or suspicion, as reflected in Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704, and N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had experienced successive postings within short intervals and that the impugned transfer departed from the normal tenure arrangement.

However, the applicable transfer instructions were administrative rather than statutory and therefore did not create an enforceable right to remain at Zoonimar for the full tenure.

The record disclosed an administrative basis for the transfer, namely the sensitive nature of the Halqa, anti-encroachment activities, and the Tehsildar’s recommendation.

Although the timing of the recommendation and transfer warranted examination, their proximity alone did not establish that the Deputy Commissioner had acted to accommodate respondent No. 5 or for any other improper purpose.

The applicant did not specifically challenge the competence of the Deputy Commissioner, nor did he produce material demonstrating personal bias, victimisation, or mala fides on the part of the authority that issued the order.

The Tribunal further held that the subsequent show-cause notice and contempt proceedings did not establish that the transfer was punitive or otherwise vitiated.

While the applicant’s personal circumstances and grievance regarding frequent transfers deserved sympathetic consideration, those matters did not render the original transfer order unlawful.

Accordingly, the challenge to the transfer order was rejected and O.A. No. 497/2022 was dismissed.

However, if the applicant’s representation dated 10 June 2022 was still pending, the competent authority was directed to consider and dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within two weeks of receiving a copy of the Tribunal’s order, while taking into account the applicant’s circumstances, applicable rules, and administrative requirements.

No order as to costs was made.