Rule 23 transfer restrictions do not apply to Development Authority employees absent constituted service cadres.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in the Pahalgam Development Authority in 1993 and was regularised as a Helper with effect from 01.04.2001.

He was subsequently working as In-charge Junior Assistant, for which charge allowance was sanctioned.

The petitioner challenged Order No. 01 of DTK-2025 dated 03.02.2025, whereby he was transferred from the Pahalgam Development Authority to the Lolab Bangus Development Authority.

He contended that the transfer violated an interim order dated 30.12.2021 passed in an earlier writ petition concerning his seniority and promotion, and that, being a Class-IV employee allegedly holding a District Cadre post, he could not be transferred outside the district under Rule 23 of the J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010.

The respondents maintained that the transfer was made by the competent authority in the interest of administration and that the petitioner had no right to remain posted at a particular place.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from the Pahalgam Development Authority to the Lolab Bangus Development Authority was invalid because Rule 23 of the J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 restricted his transfer to the relevant cadre or district.

Whether the interim order dated 30.12.2021 in the earlier seniority and promotion proceedings restrained the respondents from transferring the petitioner.

Whether the impugned transfer order was liable to be set aside on the grounds of mala fides, violation of mandatory statutory rules, or issuance by an incompetent authority.

The Court applied the settled principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and an employee has no fundamental or vested right to remain posted at a particular place.

Judicial review of a transfer order is limited to cases involving proven mala fides, violation of a mandatory statutory provision, or issuance by an incompetent authority.

Rule 2 of the J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 makes those Rules applicable to posts under the Government, while Rule 4 provides for the constitution of State, Divisional and District Cadres in Government departments; Rule 23 restricts members of such cadres to transfers within their respective cadres.

The Court further recognised that sanction of charge allowance under Article 77-B of the J&K Civil Services Regulations does not confer a right to substantive promotion to the higher post.

The Court held that the petitioner was an employee of the Pahalgam Development Authority, a statutory Development Authority created under the J&K Development Act, 1970, and not a Government department governed by the 2010 Rules.

In any event, there was no material showing that the post of Helper in the Development Authority had been constituted or earmarked as a District Cadre post.

Accordingly, Rule 23 could not invalidate the transfer.

The earlier interim order was construed in the context of proceedings concerning the petitioner’s seniority, promotion and status as In-charge Junior Assistant.

It protected that status but did not divest the respondents of their administrative power to transfer him.

Since the petitioner neither pleaded mala fides nor alleged that the order was issued by an incompetent authority, no recognised ground for judicial interference was established.

Rule 23 of the 2010 Rules did not apply so as to restrict the petitioner’s transfer, and the earlier interim order did not confer protection against transfer.

As no mala fides, statutory violation, or lack of competence was established, the writ petition was dismissed.

The interim order dated 06.02.2025 was vacated.