Transfer orders are reviewable only for mala fides, incompetence, or statutory violation.

The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer employed under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and posted at Janpad Panchayat, Katghora, challenged an order dated 1 October 2026 transferring him to PIU No. 2, Gariyaband.

He argued that the order incorrectly identified his current office, that he had previously served for over 12 years in a core Scheduled Area and was again being transferred to a Scheduled Area, and that a Sub-Engineer post remained vacant at Katghora.

He also relied on the transfer policies dated 3 June 2015 and 5 June 2025, raised family hardship, and stated that he had submitted a representation on 8 October 2026.

The State opposed interference, submitting that the petitioner’s services were governed by the Department and that he could pursue his representation under Clause 8 of the 2025 policy.

Whether the asserted error in recording the petitioner’s current place of posting justified setting aside the transfer order.

Whether the petitioner’s prior service in a Scheduled Area, the transfer policies, or the other circumstances pleaded warranted judicial interference with the transfer.

Transfer is an ordinary incident of service, and an employee has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with transfer orders unless there is proved mala fide, lack of competence in the authority making the order, or breach of statutory rules or regulations.

The transfer policies or circulars are guidelines rather than having statutory force; under the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 120 of 2021 (8 April 2021), such policies do not displace the employer’s authority to post employees according to administrative requirements.

The Court also relied on Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey, (2009) 8 SCC 337; Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway v. G. Ratnam, (2007) 8 SCC 212; and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, in support of the limited scope of judicial review of transfer decisions.

The Court found that the petitioner’s earlier transfer order showed him as an employee of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department posted at Janpad Panchayat, Katghora. The description of his current office in the impugned order could therefore be treated as a clerical error capable of departmental correction, rather than a ground to invalidate the transfer.

His prior service in a Scheduled Area did not establish a right to be posted in a non-Scheduled Area, because the relevant transfer policy was a guideline and the employer retained authority to decide postings in light of administrative needs.

The Court found no proved mala fide, lack of authority, or violation of statutory rules or regulations; the petitioner’s remaining grounds did not warrant interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.