Transfer order issued by functus officio authority is without jurisdiction.

The applicant, Irshad Ahmad Bhat, an MTS in the Skill Development Department, was transferred from Government ITI Ganderbal to Government ITI Gurez via Order No. 91 of 2026 dated February 23, 2026.

The applicant challenged this transfer, arguing it violated the Decentralization Rules of 2010 as he belongs to the District Cadre of Ganderbal and could not be transferred to District Gurez without competent authority approval.

Further, the applicant contended that the Director who approved the transfer order had already been transferred on February 20, 2026, as per Government Order No. 230-JK (GAD) of 2026, thus becoming functus officio.

Whether the transfer order dated February 23, 2026, transferring the applicant from Government ITI Ganderbal to Government ITI Gurez, is illegal and without jurisdiction due to violation of Decentralization Rules of 2010.

Whether the Director, Skill Development, J&K, had the authority to approve the transfer order, given that he had already been transferred on February 20, 2026, and was therefore functus officio.

The court recognized the principle that transfer is an exigency of service and an employee has no inherent right to choose their posting location.

It cited numerous precedents affirming that judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

Specific cases cited include E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, and S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, among others, establishing the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters unless statutory provisions are violated.

The court acknowledged the applicant’s grounds for challenging the transfer, specifically the alleged violation of the Decentralization Rules of 2010 concerning district cadre employees and the contention that the Director who approved the transfer was functus officio.

While recognizing the general principle that transfers are an exigency of service, the court chose not to delve into the merits of the allegations at this stage.

Instead, given the presented grounds, it decided to direct the respondents to consider the O.A. as a representation.

This approach allows the competent authority within the respondent department to address the specific legal challenges raised by the applicant regarding jurisdiction and adherence to rules, rather than the Tribunal making a premature determination.

During this three-week period, the applicant is to be allowed to continue at his present posting at ITI Ganderbal.

The responsibility for deciding the representation within the stipulated period rests solely with the Office of the Director, Skill Development, J&K.