Transfer order stayed pending decision on representation for violating cadre guidelines and census engagement directives.

The thirty-eight petitioners, serving as Revenue Employees in the Nalanda District, challenged a transfer order (Memo No. 298(4) dated 14.07.2026) that relocated them to "far-flung" districts

The petitioners contended that the transfer violated a departmental agreement dated 07.05.2026, which stipulated that transfers would be restricted to three adjacent districts

Additionally, the petitioners highlighted a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs (Directorate of Census Operation) dated 14.07.2026, which advised against disturbing personnel involved in census work until 31.03.2027

Despite submitting representations to the Additional Chief Secretary, no action was taken, prompting this writ petition

1. Whether the impugned transfer order is legally sustainable given its alleged violation of the departmental decision to post employees in adjacent districts

2. Whether the transfer order contravenes the central government’s directive regarding the non-disturbance of personnel engaged in census operations

Bihar Revenue Employees Cadre Rules, 2025

The doctrine of legitimate expectation arising from the departmental letter dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure-P/3), which defined the geographic scope of transfers

The binding/persuasive nature of administrative stay orders issued for national interests, such as the Census under the Census Act, as reflected in the Ministry of Home Affairs' directive

The Court observed that the transfer order appeared to be "in the teeth of" the department’s own recorded decisions and the Census Operation directives

The Court noted that the department had previously agreed (via letter dated 07.05.2026) to limit transfers to the vicinity of the home district, yet the impugned order sent petitioners to distant locations

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Authorities ignored the Central Government’s specific request to retain census-involved staff until March 2027

Rather than allowing a delay through the filing of counter-affidavits, the Court determined that the immediate contradiction between the transfer order and the existing departmental policy necessitated urgent judicial stay to prevent irreparable administrative inconsistency

Crucially, the Court ordered that the operation of the impugned transfer order (Memo No. 298(4) dated 14.07.2026) shall remain stayed until a final decision is taken on the said representations