Long station tenure justifies transfer of Group-A officers notwithstanding spouse posting or SC/ST guidelines.

The applicant, a Selection Grade Group ‘A’ officer of the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME), challenged his transfer order dated 05.09.2023 from Northeast Frontier Railway (NFR), Guwahati, to East Central Railway, Hajipur

He had served in the NFR for 25 years, with 17 years specifically in the Maligaon/Guwahati area

The applicant sought to quash the transfer and subsequent release order dated 21.10.2025 on several grounds: the transfer lacked the mandatory recommendation of a Placement Committee; it violated policies regarding spouse posting (his wife is a teacher in Guwahati); it ignored guidelines to post SC/ST employees near their home towns; and it occurred during his daughter's mid-academic session

The applicant had previously filed and withdrawn OA 246/2023 regarding the same matter

1. Whether the transfer order was void for lack of recommendation from a Placement Committee as mandated by the Railway Board and the Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to retention at his current station based on spouse posting and SC/ST guidelines?

3. Whether the transfer was liable to be stayed or quashed due to the mid-academic session of the applicant’s child?

4. Whether the transfer was vitiated by malafides or was otherwise legally unsustainable?

Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), Vol-I, which stipulates that Group ‘A’ officers have an all-India transfer liability

Gauhati High Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Sri Kundan Kumar (WP(C) No. 2460/2024), which established that the 2015 Railway Transfer Policy is not statutory and that transfers can proceed without Placement Committee proposals in administrative exigencies

Principles from Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, which limit judicial interference in transfers to cases of proven malafides or violation of statutory rules

Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa Thevan, which permits brief stays for mid-academic sessions but does not grant a right to permanent retention

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no vested right to remain in Guwahati after serving there for 25 years, as transfer is an inherent incidence of service for Group ‘A’ officers

Addressing the Placement Committee issue, the court followed the Gauhati High Court’s ruling that the 2015 policy was not statutory; since the applicant was transferred alongside other officers whose transfers were already upheld by the High Court, the procedural challenge failed

Regarding spouse grounds, the court held that while efforts should be made for co-location, it is not a mandatory bar to transfer; the applicant’s wife could apply for a transfer to his new station

The court dismissed the SC/ST home-town argument, noting that the guidelines use the phrase "as far as practicable" and do not permit indefinite stays in one location

Finally, the mid-academic session plea was rejected because the applicant had already benefited from a two-year delay since the original 2023 order, and no evidence was provided to prove the alleged malafides of Respondent No. 6

The court answered the issues in the negative, affirming that transfer policies are directory rather than mandatory and that the applicant had already exceeded a reasonable tenure at his current post

All interim orders were vacated, and the pending Contempt Petition was closed