Pending decision on a fresh representation, the transfer order shall not be coercively enforced.

The applicant, an SDE in BSNL, was initially transferred from Mirzapur OA to Varanasi by order dated 27 January 2025.

Since his daughter was appearing for her Class X Board Examination, his request for retention was accepted, and he was retained at Mirzapur until 31 December 2025.

In response to a subsequent request, the applicant sought retention until March 2027 on account of his daughter’s forthcoming Class XII Board Examination. His request was recommended by the Additional General Manager, Mirzapur and the General Manager, Varanasi.

By order dated 6 July 2026, the respondents permitted him to continue at Mirzapur for 179 days or until further orders. However, on 27 July 2026, he was transferred from Mirzapur to Bhadohi.

The applicant challenged the transfer, alleging arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and disregard of the earlier retention order and favourable recommendations.

The respondents defended the transfer as an administrative decision taken by the competent authority and stated that the applicant had already been relieved.

Whether the transfer order dated 27 July 2026 was liable to be judicially interfered with on the ground that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or issued without proper consideration of the applicant’s educational and personal difficulties?

Whether the applicant should be permitted to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the competent authority and obtain protection from coercive action pending its consideration?

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal exercised jurisdiction over the applicant’s service-related challenge.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incidence of service and that the employer is ordinarily entitled to determine where an employee’s services are required. Judicial review of a transfer order is limited and is warranted only where the order is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of a statutory provision.

The Tribunal further applied the constitutional requirement that administrative action must satisfy the standards of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, while recognising that recommendations of an authority lacking final competence do not create an enforceable right.

The Tribunal declined to examine the substantive merits of the transfer because transfer policy and administrative requirements primarily fall within the employer’s domain, and no conclusive finding of mala fides, statutory violation, or arbitrariness was made.

Nevertheless, it considered the applicant’s contention that the respondents had recently permitted him to remain at Mirzapur for 179 days or until further orders, despite earlier favourable recommendations and his daughter’s impending Class XII examination.

In view of these peculiar circumstances, the Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s case through a fresh, comprehensive representation, without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the validity of the transfer itself.

The applicant was granted liberty to submit a fresh comprehensive representation, along with supporting documents, to the competent authority within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four weeks of its receipt, in accordance with law and the applicable transfer policy.

No coercive action pursuant to the transfer order dated 27 July 2026 was to be taken until the representation was decided, provided it was submitted within the prescribed period.

No order as to costs was made, and the Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the transfer order.