Transfer of MNREGA employees not based on personal application is impermissible absent specific administrative exigencies.

The petitioner, an Additional Program Officer at Janpad Panchayat Pohri, District Shivpuri, challenged a transfer order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) moving him to Janpad Panchayat Khaniyadhana.

The petitioner contended that the 2025 MNREGA service scheme only allows transfers based on the employee's own application or under specific disciplinary exigencies (e.g., cases by Lokayukt, EOW, or Police), neither of which applied here.

The successor appointee, Sachin Gupta, also represented against the transfer, stating he did not seek the post.

The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to decide his representation in light of the precedent Natthu Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 31488/2024).

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was passed in violation of the MNREGA Scheme 2025 policy regarding administrative exigencies and voluntary transfers.

2. Whether the court should exercise its power of judicial review to stay the transfer pending a decision on the petitioner's representation.

The court reaffirmed that transfer is an incident of service and no employee has a vested right to a particular posting.

Under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases involving mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power.

The specific regulatory framework applied was the MNREGA Scheme 2025, specifically Clause 3.3, which restricts administrative transfers to instances where criminal or corruption cases (Lokayukt/EOW) are registered against the employee.

The court balanced the principle that the employer is the best judge of its workforce against the specific restrictive language of the MNREGA Scheme 2025.

It noted that the petitioner pointed to Clause 3.3 of the policy, which seemingly exhausted the grounds for involuntary administrative transfers, and observed that the State did not provide evidence of any pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

Recognizing the parity with Natthu Singh Yadav, and given the State’s lack of objection to a "time-bound" administrative review, the court found it appropriate to shield the petitioner from relocation until the competent authority formally addressed the policy-based grievances.

The court ordered the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within 7 days; the competent authority to pass a reasoned order within three weeks of receipt; and the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 to be stayed, permitting the petitioner to continue at Janpad Panchayat Pohri until the representation is decided.