Transfer cancellation based on erroneous factual assumption of retirement date is legally unsustainable.

The Appellant, a Forest Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) at Janakpur, was transferred on 30.06.2025 to Manendragarh, while Respondent No. 5 was transferred to his place

The Appellant challenged this via representation to the Committee of Senior Secretaries, claiming he was on the verge of retirement (leaving less than one year of service) and that the transfer was to accommodate Respondent No. 5 in his home district

Based on the Committee’s recommendation dated 19.08.2025, the State cancelled the transfer on 22.09.2025

Respondent No. 5 challenged this cancellation in the Writ Court (WPS No. 11502/2025). The learned Single Judge quashed the cancellation order on 19.03.2026, finding that the Appellant actually had more than one year of service remaining and that Respondent No. 5 had already assumed charge

1. Whether the recommendation of the Committee and the subsequent cancellation of the transfer order by the State Government were legally sustainable based on the facts regarding the Appellant’s retirement date.

2. Whether the transfer of Respondent No. 5 to Janakpur violated Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular regarding home district postings.

Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, which provides that government servants with less than one year of service remaining should generally not be transferred or should be posted as per their option

The principle that transfer and posting are incidents of service within the administrative domain of the State, and judicial interference is only warranted if the order is vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations

The Court observed that the Committee’s recommendation for cancellation was erroneously founded on Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy

Departmental records and comments from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 12.08.2025 explicitly showed the Appellant’s date of birth as 19.10.1964 and superannuation as 31.10.2026

Consequently, on the date of the transfer order (30.06.2025), the Appellant had 1 year and 4 months of service remaining, making Clause 1.6 inapplicable

The Court dismissed the Appellant's argument that other "ancillary" administrative considerations justified the cancellation, holding that if the foundational fact (time until retirement) was incorrect, the decision was unsustainable

Furthermore, the Court accepted departmental affidavits stating that Respondent No. 5 had validly assumed charge on 04.07.2025 and noted that Janakpur was not the home district of Respondent No. 5 following district reorganization

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order. The State’s order dated 22.09.2025 remains quashed, and the original transfer orders dated 30.06.2025 are restored. All pending applications, including the intervention, were rejected.