Transfer order based on outdated posting details is vitiated by non-application of mind.

The petitioner, a Tehsildar, was transferred from District Sakti to District Korba by order dated 25 February 2024.

He was relieved by the Collector, Sakti, on 21 August 2026, joined at Korba on 24 August 2026, and was posted as Tehsildar, Ajgarbahar, District Korba, by order dated 2 September 2026.

Subsequently, the State issued a transfer order dated 9 September 2026 transferring him to District Jashpur, apparently treating him as a Tehsildar posted at District Sakti.

The petitioner challenged the transfer order insofar as it concerned him and also sought consideration of his representation dated 11 September 2026.

The State acknowledged that the petitioner was serving at Korba and that the subsequent relieving, joining, and posting orders may not have been brought to the competent authority’s notice before the impugned transfer order was issued.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 9 September 2026 was vitiated by non-application of mind because it treated the petitioner as posted at District Sakti despite his subsequent relieving, joining, and posting at District Korba.

2. Whether the impugned transfer order, insofar as it concerned the petitioner, was liable to be quashed.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that an order must be based on relevant and accurate facts and must reflect due application of mind by the competent authority.

An administrative transfer order founded on an incorrect factual premise, particularly where material subsequent orders have been ignored, cannot be sustained to that extent.

The Court did not rely on any specific statutory provision or precedent in reaching its decision.

The documentary record established that, before the impugned order was issued, the petitioner had been relieved from Sakti, had joined at Korba, and had been posted at Ajgarbahar, District Korba.

Nevertheless, the transfer order proceeded on the basis that he remained posted at Sakti.

Since the order failed to consider the material developments relating to his actual place of posting, the Court found that it suffered from non-application of mind.

The State’s submission that these developments had apparently not been brought to the authority’s notice reinforced the factual basis for setting aside the order, rather than curing the defect.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part.

The State was granted liberty to issue a fresh transfer order concerning the petitioner, if administratively necessary and otherwise in accordance with law.