Transfer order rejection without reasoned order is discriminatory and non-speaking.

Smt. Anjana Laha, an Upper Division Clerk, was transferred from Kolkata to Delhi via an order dated December 26, 2025.

She submitted a representation on January 2, 2026, citing difficulties with the transfer due to her daughter's studies in City College, Kolkata, her son's enrollment in Class VI at South Point School, Kolkata, and her husband being a Central Government employee posted in Kolkata.

Her representation was rejected without providing reasons through a common order dated February 17, 2026.

The applicant contended that this rejection was non-speaking, cryptic, and discriminatory, especially since other applicants were granted consideration on medical grounds via an order dated January 20, 2026.

It was also noted that the applicant had not yet been relieved of her duties at the time of the hearing.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's representation against her transfer order was arbitrary, non-speaking, cryptic, and discriminatory.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant's case and provide a reasoned decision.

The court applied the general principles of administrative law requiring public authorities to provide reasoned and speaking orders when rejecting representations, especially when such rejections impact an individual's rights or circumstances.

The principles of natural justice and fairness implicitly guide administrative actions, demanding transparency and due consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents rejected the applicant's representation in a "stereotype manner".

This implied a lack of proper consideration for the specific grounds raised by the applicant concerning her family circumstances and her children's education.

The court deemed the rejection order to be "non-speaking one, cryptic and also discriminatory in nature," particularly when contrasted with other cases where consideration was granted on medical grounds.

The court emphasized that for the "ends of justice," a reasoned and speaking order is essential, indicating that the initial rejection failed to meet this standard.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a fresh reconsideration was warranted to ensure that the applicant's arguments were duly addressed.

The respondents were ordered to communicate a reasoned and speaking decision to the applicant within four weeks of receiving the order.

Until then, the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo concerning the applicant.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage.