Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without reasoned and speaking orders is legally unsustainable.

The applicant, an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (Group ‘A’), challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026, which moved him from Delhi to Mumbai

The applicant submitted representations on 17.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, citing severe medical grounds (Grade 3+ and 4+ allergies to dust mites) and a violation of the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, which mandates rotational transfers based on a descending order of tenure

The respondents rejected these representations via common orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026

During the pendency of the Original Application (OA), the applicant was relieved from his Delhi posting on 13.04.2026

1. Whether the impugned transfer and rejection orders were arbitrary and passed in a mechanical manner without considering specific medical and policy grounds

2. Whether the court should interfere with a transfer order when administrative exigencies and transfer policies are in conflict

The court examined the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, specifically Clause 3.1 regarding rotational transfers

It relied on several Supreme Court precedents: Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), establishing that courts should not interfere in transfers unless they violate statutory rules or are mala fide

S.C. Saxena v. Union of India (2006), stating that employees must report to the new station before ventilating grievances

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), clarifying that transfer guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights

State of UP v. Govardhan Lal (2004), holding that transfers in public interest should not be interfered with even if they transgress administrative guidelines

The Tribunal observed that while administrative authorities have the prerogative to transfer employees for rationalization and efficiency, the respondents disposed of the applicant's representation in a "mechanical manner"

The Tribunal noted that the rejection orders for 27 to 55 employees used identical, non-specific language and failed to address the individual medical evidence or specific points raised regarding the transfer policy

It reasoned that while public interest is paramount, the morale of senior officers requires that their individual difficulties be dealt with in a "sensitive" and "sympathetic" manner through reasoned and speaking orders, rather than through blanket administrative assertions of "exigency"

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s representation afresh, taking into account the cited Supreme Court judgments and policy guidelines, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days; the applicant be allowed to remain at his Delhi posting until the disposal of the representation