Transfer: Mandate for authorities to act justly and fairly in employee redeployment.

Ramesh Chandra Behera (Applicant), a PGT Biology at KV No-1 Balasore, was declared surplus and subsequently redeployed to KV, Jharsuguda, where he joined on April 9, 2025.

The Applicant had submitted an application on March 21, 2025, requesting adjustment to KV-2 Balasore, Vyasa Nagar, KV Kendrapara, KV Jagatsinghpur, or KV-2 Angul.

He claimed this redeployment was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, citing that another individual, Dr. Shiharan Bose (Respondent No. 5), was posted at KV-2 Balasore, and that Ms. Haimabat Jena, a PGT Biology, had her transfer modified to KV-4 Bhubaneswar under the Transfer Policy 2023.

The Applicant contended that his displacement count was 0 as per para 4 of the 2023 transfer guidelines, because his wife also works in Balasore, and that PGT Biology posts were available at KV-2 Balasore.

He also represented on March 24, 2025, to continue at KV-1 Balasore due to his son's upcoming Class XII Board Examination and his wife's employment in the same station.

The Respondents argued that Dr. Bose was engaged as a consultant after retirement and that transfer/redeployment is an executive authority's domain and should not be judicially interfered with, especially in administrative exigency.

Whether the redeployment of the applicant from KV-1 Balasore to KV, Jharsuguda, while a PGT Biology post was available at KV-2 Balasore, is illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory, especially in light of the prevalent transfer policy guidelines.

Whether the non-consideration of the applicant's personal difficulties and his displacement count as per the Transfer Policy 2023 by the respondents violates the principles of natural justice and fair decision-making.

The court emphasized that principles of natural justice require administrative authorities to act justly and fairly, not arbitrarily or capriciously, as established in A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 262.

It also noted that a model employer has a duty to consider personal difficulties in transfer decisions, provided administrative requirements are not compromised.

The court further considered the criteria for identifying surplus staff and displacement counts as per the Transfer Policy 2023, specifically para 4, which accounts for spousal employment in the same station.

The court observed that the respondents did not dispute the availability of a PGT Biology post at KV-2 Balasore when the applicant was declared surplus.

It noted that the applicant's displacement count, considering his wife's employment in Balasore, would be 0 as per para 4 of the Transfer Guidelines 2023, which the respondents "cannot be sidetracked".

The court rejected the applicability of the precedents cited by the respondents, stating they had no relevance to the facts presented.

It highlighted the duty of a 'model employer' to consider personal difficulties, such as the applicant's son's upcoming examination and wife's employment, consistent with procedural fairness as outlined in A.K. Kraipak.

While acknowledging that the transfer policy dictated the identification of surplus staff, the court found no clear rule governing the redeployment process itself.

The court found that the applicant's representation regarding his spouse's employment and his displacement count under the Transfer Policy 2023, coupled with the availability of a post at KV-2 Balasore, warranted reconsideration.

Therefore, the OA was disposed of, and respondent No.3 (Dy. Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar) was directed to consider the applicant's representation dated April 22, 2025, taking into account the existing guidelines for surplus employee adjustment and the points discussed in the order.

This review is to be completed with a well-reasoned order within 60 days of receiving a copy of the court's order.