Premature transfer violating minimum-tenure and near-retirement safeguards, without stated reasons, is liable to be set aside.

The petitioner, a Deputy Manager with the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC), was posted at its Kalaburagi Branch on 28 January 2025.

By order dated 14 July 2026, he was transferred to Koppal and was relieved on 18 July 2026.

He challenged both orders under Article 227, contending that the transfer was premature and inconsistent with the 2026–27 Transfer Policy.

The Corporation relied on administrative exigencies and guideline 19(h).

The petitioner was due to retire on 31 March 2028.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from Kalaburagi to Koppal before completion of the policy’s minimum three-year stay was contrary to the 2026–27 Transfer Policy

Whether the transfer could be sustained on the Corporation’s claim of administrative exigency, despite the petitioner being within two years of retirement and the transfer order stating no reason

The Court applied clauses 2 and 3 of the KSFC Transfer Policy for 2026–27. Clause 2 prescribes a minimum stay of three years at a place; clause 3 provides that an employee due to retire within two years may, as far as possible, be transferred to the employee’s chosen place or a preferred nearby place.

The Corporation also relied on guideline 19(h), invoking administrative exigency; the judgment does not set out its text. The Court cited no statute or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

The petitioner had served at Kalaburagi from 28 January 2025 until the transfer order of 14 July 2026, short of the three-year minimum stay under clause 2.

The Court also considered that he was approaching retirement and that clause 3 addressed employees due to retire within two years. The transfer order gave no reason for the transfer. In these circumstances, the Court rejected the Corporation’s administrative-exigency contention and held that the transfer was inconsistent with the policy.

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the transfer order dated 14 July 2026 and the consequential relieving memo dated 18 July 2026 insofar as they concerned the petitioner, and permitted him to continue at the Kalaburagi Branch.

No order was made as to costs.