Transfer challenge treated as representation for decision by the competent authority within one week.

The applicant, a Master serving as Head of Institution at Government Middle School Chadoora, challenged an order dated 5 October 2026 transferring him to High School Shalinar, Budgam.

He alleged, among other things, that the transfer was politically motivated, contrary to the applicable transfer policy, and issued by an authority lacking competence to transfer a Master.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file an affidavit on the Director’s competence. The affidavit stated that the Director was competent to transfer employees in the Divisional Cadre, subject to the applicable policy and delegation of powers, but did not specifically establish the Director’s authority to transfer a Master.

The applicant also relied on the timing of the transfer and an earlier transfer order said to have been issued under the Commissioner/Secretary’s directions.

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was liable to be set aside on the grounds that it was issued by an incompetent authority, was mala fide, or violated the transfer policy.

2. Whether the Tribunal should grant immediate relief or direct the competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s transfer.

Transfer is an exigency of service, and an employee has no right to remain posted at a place of choice; courts ordinarily have limited power to interfere with transfer orders.

Interference may be warranted where the order is made by an incompetent authority, is mala fide, is not for the professed purpose, or contravenes a statute.

The Tribunal referred to the transfer-law principles in, among other authorities, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592; and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402.

The Tribunal also noted the Government’s Transfer Policy, Government Order No. 335-JK (Edu) of 2026 dated 20 August 2026.

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s challenges but did not determine whether the transfer was in fact politically motivated, contrary to policy, or beyond the Director’s authority.

The respondents’ affidavit gave a general account of the Director’s divisional-level transfer powers, while leaving the cadre-specific question subject to the applicable policy and delegation.

Given the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters and the applicant’s request for disposal, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the O.A. as a representation and decide it on its contents and merits.

The Director, School Education, Kashmir, was directed to pass appropriate orders on the applicant’s representation within one week, and the applicant’s existing position was not to be disturbed during that week.

The respondents were also directed to submit the disposal order before the Tribunal, and the matter was listed for compliance on 28 October 2026.

No order was made as to costs.