Short-interval transfers are valid absent mala fides or statutory violation.

The petitioner, a Grade-IV employee/Peon of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (ASWC), had served for approximately 25 years, largely within Kamrup (Metro).

By order dated 6 May 2026, he was transferred from the Head Office to the Maidamgaon General Centre, Guwahati; by the impugned order dated 21 August 2026, he was transferred to the Machkhowa Centre, Dhemaji—his first posting outside Kamrup (Metro).

He challenged the second transfer, alleging that it followed a threat by the Managing Director and was connected to suspected disclosure of information to the media.

He also relied on his and his mother’s medical circumstances.

ASWC denied improper motive and cited staffing shortages and operational requirements relating to NFSA and mustard-seed procurement.

The petitioner’s representation dated 24 August 2026 was pending when he filed the writ petition.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 21 August 2026 was liable to be set aside as an improper exercise of the Corporation’s transfer power, including on grounds of mala fide or absence of administrative justification.

2. Whether the petitioner’s medical circumstances warranted consideration of his pending representation and interim protection concerning his place of posting.

Clause 12(vii) of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1989, makes an employee liable to transfer in the Corporation’s interest, with no option as to transfer or posting.

Under Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, transfer is an incident of service, and the choice of employee and posting ordinarily belongs to the appropriate authority; courts generally do not interfere unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or violates a statutory provision.

A long period at one location does not, by itself, confer a right to remain there.

The Court found no statutory provision barring the transfer of a Grade-IV employee between districts and held that the petitioner’s lengthy service in Kamrup (Metro) did not create a right to remain there.

Although the second transfer followed the first within a few months, that circumstance alone did not invalidate it.

The alleged threat was unsupported by independent material, and the newspaper reports’ chronology did not establish the alleged motive.

ASWC’s explanation of manpower shortages and operational requirements was an administrative assessment the Court would not replace absent statutory breach or evidence of mala fide.

The medical material did not invalidate the transfer but was relevant to the pending representation.

It directed ASWC’s competent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 24 August 2026 by a reasoned order, taking account of the medical documents and pleaded difficulties, within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

Until the representation is decided, the parties must maintain the status quo regarding the petitioner’s place of posting.