Preference-based transfer policies do not override administrative discretion for employees holding all-India transfer liability.

The petitioner, an Inspector (Ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenged a transfer order dated 07.01.2026, which moved him from the DIG Range, Bhopal, to the North East Zone (NEZ) Office in Guwahati

He also challenged the rejection of his representation against the said order dated 20.02.2026

The petitioner’s primary grievance was that the transfer violated a CRPF circular dated 31.03.2022, which mandates that personnel be given an opportunity to fill choice units through the SAMBHAV App/SANTOS Portal before a transfer is effected

He contended that Guwahati was neither an eligible unit nor part of his 25 choice units

The petitioner had been posted in and around his home town, Bhopal, for twenty-one years (since 2005)

1. Whether a transfer order is arbitrary or illegal if the personnel is posted to a unit not included in the choice list provided under the SAMBHAV/SANTOS policy

2. Whether the court should interfere with a transfer order when the employee holds an all-India transfer liability and has remained in a single location for a prolonged period

transfer is an incidence of service and does not constitute a legal right for an employee to demand a specific choice of posting

individuals holding posts with all-India transfer liability are subject to deployment based on administrative requirements

interference is only warranted in cases of proven mala fides or violation of statutory provisions

The court scrutinized the petitioner’s service history and found that he had remained posted in and around Bhopal for the last twenty-one years, which is his hometown

A detailed review of the posting chart indicated that since 2005, the petitioner had consistently served in Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal, Gwalior, Neemuch, Balaghat) or had been on attachment in Delhi while technically posted to units in the region

The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the mandatory nature of the choice-based posting circular, reasoning that such policies do not override the fundamental nature of transfer as an incidence of service, especially for those with all-India transfer liability

the court noted the absence of any allegations of mala fides against the competent authority that issued the transfer order

It held that the petitioner could not claim an absolute right to a choice posting, particularly given his twenty-one-year tenure in his home region and the absence of any bad faith in the administrative decision

The transfer to the North East Zone was upheld as a valid exercise of administrative authority