Transfer Order Not Subject to Judicial Interference Absent Malafide or Statutory Violation

The applicant, Satish Chand, a Tower Wagon Driver at Piplod, was aggrieved by an order dated 14.05.2024, transferring him from Piplod to Makshi

He had applied for a transfer to Ujjain, Makshi, or Badnagar on 02.03.2023

The applicant alleged that the sequence of his preferred stations was manipulated, leading to respondent no. 4, Dinesh Kumar, being transferred from Badnagar to Ujjain on his own request dated 24.12.2021

The applicant further contended that respondent no. 4 was transferred from Nimarkhedi to Badnagar on his own request, without completing the mandatory two-year tenure as per Para 13 of the Transfer Policy of 2021, and subsequently transferred again

The respondents, however, stated that respondent no. 4's request was considered first due to its earlier date, and the applicant was transferred to Makshi, one of his preferred choices

Both the applicant and respondent no. 4 have already joined their respective transferred posts

Whether the transfer order dated 14.05.2024, transferring the applicant from Piplod to Makshi, should be quashed

Whether the transfer of respondent no. 4, Dinesh Kumar, should be quashed

Whether the Tribunal should direct respondent no. 2 to conduct an inquiry against departmental officials

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incident and condition of service, not subject to judicial interference unless malafide or violative of statutory provisions

It relied on the Supreme Court's observation in *High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. R. Perachi* (2011) 12 SCC 137, which stated that transfer decisions are best left to hierarchical superiors and should not be scrutinized judicially unless vitiated by malafides or infraction of a professed norm

Additionally, the Tribunal considered Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which defines "order" for redressal of grievances, to determine the maintainability of certain claims

The court reasoned that transfers are administrative prerogatives, and judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of malafide intent or violation of statutory provisions

In this case, the applicant was transferred to Makshi, which was one of his preferred choices, and he has already joined the new post

The respondents clarified that respondent no. 4's application for transfer was submitted earlier (24.12.2021) than the applicant's (02.03.2023), justifying the prioritization of respondent no. 4's request

The Tribunal emphasized that a government servant has no legal right to be posted for long at any one particular place

Regarding the request for an inquiry against officials, the Tribunal found that such a claim falls outside the scope of "order" as defined in Section 19(1) of the A.T. Act, 1985, and thus, was not maintainable

The transfer order was not interfered with, as the applicant was transferred to one of his chosen stations and had already joined

The claim for an inquiry against departmental officials was deemed not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

There was no order as to costs