Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Engineer on a contractual basis under the Sarva Sikshan Abhiyan in 2010
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Over the years, upon the expiration of each contract, the petitioner was offered successive new contracts in various districts
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Following the completion of his contract as TRP in Mahemdabad, the respondent authority issued an order dated 31.12.2025 offering a new contract at Padra, Dist. Vadodara
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The petitioner challenged this "transfer" and the subsequent relieving order dated 21.01.2026, contending that his original 2010 contract lacked a transferability clause and that he should be offered a new contract at his previous place of work
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2-3Issues
Whether an offer of a new contract at a different location upon the expiration of an old contract constitutes a legally challengeable "transfer" in the absence of a transfer clause
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Whether a contractual employee has a vested right to demand the renewal of a contract at a specific geographic location of their choice
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6; p. 6, para. 11Law Applied
The court applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service, but distinguished it from the formation of a new contract
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2It emphasized the doctrine of freedom of contract, where an offer and acceptance are required to form a binding agreement
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6The court further differentiated the facts from the precedent in Vegada Varsha Revashankar v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 12419 of 2015), noting that judicial intervention in transfers is generally reserved for violations of statutory ratios or specific service conditions not present in purely contractual renewals
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4; p. 5, para. 8Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the communication dated 31.12.2025 was not a transfer order in the traditional sense, but an offer for a fresh contract following the natural expiration of the previous one
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Because the earlier contract had "lived its life," the petitioner had no subsisting right to be stationed at Mahemdabad
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9The Court noted that the petitioner's past conduct of accepting contracts in various districts undermined his argument against relocation
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Furthermore, the Court held that the Distance between the old and new sites (approx. 80 kms) did not constitute "great hardship"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Crucially, the Court observed that as the petitioner had not yet accepted the new offer, no vested right had accrued, and the judiciary cannot compel the State to offer a contract at a location dictated by the appointee
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6; p. 6, para. 11Holding
The Court answered that the offer of a new contract at a different location is a matter of the employer's discretion and the candidate's choice to accept or reject, not an illegal transfer
The petition was dismissed, holding that the Court cannot force the State to offer a contract at a place of the petitioner's choice
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11; p. 7, para. 11The interim reliefs were denied and the relieving order was maintained.
Source reference: no citationOriginal Court PDF
Aziz Musabhai Bandi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [R/Special Civil Application No. 3192 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in