Premature transfer contrary to prescribed tenure guidelines is liable to be quashed.

The applicant, a Superintendent in the Technical Branch at Customs Headquarters, Shillong, was posted there on 16 July 2025.

By Establishment Order No. 112/2025 dated 7 November 2025, he was transferred on loan for two years to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, after approximately four months at Shillong.

The applicant challenged the transfer, contending that it violated the Transfer/Placement Guidelines for Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ Officers dated 14 March 2023, which contemplated a normal tenure of four years and transfer ordinarily upon completion of the stipulated tenure.

The applicant also relied on his wife’s posting at NEIGRIHMS, Shillong, and his responsibility towards their school-going child.

The respondents justified the transfer on the ground of acute vacancies at DGGSTI, Guwahati, where 17 vacancies existed against a sanctioned strength of 21 Superintendents, and asserted that the applicant’s posting was made in administrative exigency and public interest.

Whether the applicant’s transfer to DGGSTI, Guwahati, after approximately four months at Shillong, violated the applicable Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2023, particularly the provisions concerning normal tenure and transfer upon completion of the stipulated tenure

Whether the respondents were justified in deviating from the transfer guidelines on the ground of administrative exigency and public interest

Whether the applicant was entitled to continue at Shillong on account of his spouse’s posting there and his family circumstances

The Tribunal applied the Transfer/Placement Guidelines dated 14 March 2023 for Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ officers of the CGST and Customs, particularly the provisions stating that options for posting should ordinarily be exercised by 31 January and posting orders issued by 15 March; that the normal tenure in the relevant formations was four years; and that, as far as feasible, transfers should ordinarily occur after completion of the stipulated tenure.

The respondents relied on the guidelines’ provision permitting administrative deviation and on the principle that transfer guidelines do not ordinarily confer an enforceable legal right, as recognised in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357.

They also relied on the principle that institutional and administrative requirements may prevail over an employee’s personal or family difficulties, referring to Susheel Kumar Singh v. Union of India, O.A. No. 3621/2011.

The Tribunal ultimately treated the respondents’ own transfer policy as controlling in the circumstances and held that the premature transfer was contrary to that policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had joined the relevant Customs formation at Shillong on 16 July 2025 and was transferred on 7 November 2025, before completing even four months of service there.

It considered the guideline prescribing a normal four-year tenure and the provision that transfers should ordinarily be made after completion of the stipulated tenure.

Although the respondents asserted that the transfer was necessitated by 17 vacancies at DGGSTI, Guwahati, and that the guidelines permitted administrative deviation, the Tribunal concluded that transferring the applicant after only four months violated the respondents’ own transfer policy.

The Tribunal did not find it necessary to grant separate relief based on the spouse-posting or family considerations; its decision rested on the premature transfer and breach of the applicable guidelines.

The Establishment/transfer Order dated 7 November 2025 was quashed and set aside insofar as it concerned the applicant.

The respondents were directed to permit him to continue at Customs Headquarters, Shillong, until completion of his fixed tenure under the applicable policy.

After completion of that tenure, the respondents were left at liberty to transfer him in accordance with administrative exigencies.

No order as to costs was made.