Transfer is an incident of service and cannot be challenged unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.

The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector (R.I.), challenged the transfer orders dated 15.06.2026 and 16.06.2026, which moved him from R.I. Circle Girwai, Gwalior to R.I. Circle Bhitarwar

The petitioner argued the transfer was erroneously labeled as a "choice posting" (own request) when no such request was made, misidentified his rank as "Patwari," and was issued solely to accommodate respondent No. 7 in violation of Clause 21 of the Transfer Policy

The State contended that the petitioner had been stationed in Gwalior since 2018 and that the clerical error regarding the "request" label had been rectified via an amended order dated 23.06.2026

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was liable to be quashed for being mala fide, based on incorrect factual premises, or in violation of the statutory transfer policy.

2. Whether an employee has a vested legal right to remain posted at a specific location.

The court applied the established principles of judicial review regarding administrative transfers as settled in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, and State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, which dictate that transfers should only be interfered with if they are mala fide, violate statutory rules, or are passed by incompetent authorities

It further relied on Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [para. 6] and Union of India v. S. L. Abbas [para. 10], which establish that transfer is an incident of service and that administrative guidelines/policies do not confer legally enforceable rights upon an employee

The court reasoned that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited and does not allow the court to act as an appellate authority over administrative decisions

It observed that the petitioner had failed to provide concrete material to prove mala fides or a violation of any statutory provision

The court noted the respondent's clarification that the errors in the original order (the "request" label) were clerical and subsequently amended

Given that the petitioner had been posted in the Gwalior region since 2018, the court found the transfer to be a routine administrative matter necessitated by the exigencies of service rather than a punitive or unlawful action

The petition was dismissed as it lacked substance because the petitioner failed to establish proven mala fides or a breach of statutory rules

The court declined to interfere with the administrative discretion of the State, and any existing grievances regarding the transfer policy were directed to be addressed through departmental representation rather than litigation