Transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable rights absent malafides or breach of mandatory statutory provisions.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) at SRO, Rohini, Delhi, challenged Transfer Order No. 54 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026, which moved her to R.O. Ahmedabad, Gujarat

The applicant contended that the transfer violated Clause B(2)(vii) of the DoP&T O.M. dated 24.11.2022 and Clause 7.4 of the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024, both of which mandate/recommend the posting of husband and wife at the same station (her husband being a lecturer in a GNCTD school)

The respondents argued that the transfer was in public interest, no vacancies existed in Delhi NCR, and administrative guidelines do not confer enforceable rights upon employees

The applicant sought a direction for the respondents to consider her pending representations dated 13.04.2026 and 15.04.2026 and requested interim relief to remain at her current post

1. Whether the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside for being in violation of spouse-ground posting guidelines issued by the DoP&T and ESIC

2. Whether the Tribunal can interfere in a transfer order issued in public interest in the absence of proven mala fides or violation of statutory provisions

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is prohibited unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or violates mandatory statutory provisions, as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and Namrata Verma v. State of U.P.

It further relied on Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, which establishes that personal hardships caused by transfers are matters for departmental consideration rather than judicial review

Additionally, the court noted that administrative guidelines, such as the DoP&T O.M. on spouse postings, do not create a vested legal right for an employee to remain at a specific station [Union of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar]

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 and DoP&T guidelines suggest spouse-ground postings at the same station, these are not statutory mandates that override administrative requirements or "public interest"

Citing S.L. Abbas, the court noted that the authority must keep guidelines in mind, but the court’s role is limited to ensuring the department considers the employee's grievances

The court distinguished this case from other ESIC matters where interim stays were granted, noting those were based on specific concessions by the respondents which were absent here

Since the applicant failed to provide material evidence of mala fides, and the respondents claimed a lack of vacancies in Delhi, the court found no grounds for judicial interference with the transfer order itself

However, following Rajendra Roy, the court determined that the applicant's personal difficulties must be evaluated by the department

However, it disposed of the O.A. by directing the competent authority to decide the applicant's pending representations (dated 13.04.2026 and 15.04.2026) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks

The court held that while an employee cannot insist on a specific posting, the department is expected to deal with policy violations and personal hardships with objectivity