Operational requirements may justify transfer despite nonbinding guidelines, absent arbitrariness or mala fides.

The applicant, a Station Master, was posted to Lucknow on his own request on 6 October 2025 and transferred to Chaubisi by order dated 23 March 2026.

After an earlier application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide his representation and permitted him to remain at Lucknow pending that decision; the representation was rejected on 1 September 2026.

The applicant challenged both the transfer and the rejection, contending that the transfer was premature, contrary to transfer guidelines, and arbitrary.

The respondents stated that it was required to fill a vacant Station Superintendent post at Chaubisi.

1. Whether the transfer order was liable to be set aside as contrary to the applicable transfer guidelines or otherwise arbitrary

2. Whether the stated administrative requirement of filling the vacancy at Chaubisi justified the transfer, notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions concerning the Lucknow vacancy and the derailment report

Transfer is an incident and condition of service and ordinarily should not be interfered with unless it violates a statutory provision, is made by an incompetent authority, or is mala fide, including where it is imposed in lieu of punishment.

The Tribunal relied on Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433; State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, AIR 2001 SC 1748; State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165; and Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 1399.

It also cited Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 (2) SCC (Supp) 659; Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574, for the principle that courts and tribunals should not interfere with transfers absent a recognised ground for judicial review.

Transfer guidelines are relevant norms, but administrative and operational requirements may take precedence, and an employee has no indefeasible right to remain at a particular posting.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that the transfer was made to meet the administrative requirement of filling a vacant post at Chaubisi.

The applicant’s absence from the joint report concerning the derailment did not prevent the respondents from transferring him on administrative grounds.

Nor was it for the Tribunal to determine whether filling the vacancy at Lucknow was more important than filling the vacancy at Chaubisi; that assessment fell within the respondents’ administrative domain.

Given the plausible explanation and no established statutory breach, incompetence, or mala fides, the Tribunal found no basis to characterise the transfer as arbitrary.

The OA was dismissed as devoid of merit; the associated MAs were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.