Transfer orders are unsustainable when authorities fail to establish compliance with binding placement-committee procedures.

The applicant, a Railway employee initially appointed as a Group-D Helper in 2007, was later selected as Chief Commercial Clerk-II and posted in the Northeast Frontier Railway. On his own-request transfer, he was posted from Radhikapur to Katihar by order dated 27 September 2021. Within approximately eight to nine months, he was transferred from Katihar to Rampur Bazar by order dated 7 June 2022 and, by the impugned order dated 9 June 2022, to Kaliaganj as Chief Commercial-cum-Reservation Supervisor.

The applicant challenged the transfer on the grounds that the Placement Committee was improperly constituted, the order was not approved by the competent authority, the transfer violated Railway Board instructions dated 10 June 2014, and it ignored his personal hardship arising from his ailing widowed mother. The respondents maintained that the transfer was made on administrative grounds, pursuant to the approval of the Placement Committee, and that transfer was an ordinary incident of service.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents deployed the applicant at Katihar as a temporary measure by order dated 6 March 2023.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 9 June 2022 was vitiated because the Placement Committee was not constituted and did not function in accordance with the Railway Board’s instructions dated 10 June 2014.

2. Whether the transfer order was approved by the competent authority as required under the applicable Railway Board instructions.

3. Whether the applicant’s prior own-request transfer to Katihar, personal hardship, and subsequent temporary deployment at Katihar warranted interference with the impugned transfer and moulding of relief.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place; the employer has discretion to determine postings based on administrative exigencies. However, judicial review is available where a transfer is made by an incompetent authority, violates a binding statutory or administrative policy, or is actuated by an extraneous or punitive purpose.

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board’s instructions dated 10 June 2014, issued following the Supreme Court’s decision in T.S.R. Subramanian, concerning the constitution and functioning of Placement Committees for Group-C employees and approval by the competent authority.

It further applied the principle that, where the prescribed decision-making process is specifically challenged, the administration must demonstrate that the required procedure was followed.

The Tribunal also recognised that subsequent developments may be considered while moulding relief.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondents generally possessed authority to transfer the applicant and that personal hardship or an alleged right to remain at Katihar, by itself, could not invalidate the transfer.

However, the applicant’s challenge was directed principally at the legality of the decision-making process. He specifically alleged that the committee comprised ACM, AOM and APO—Group-B officers—rather than officers of the categories contemplated by paragraph 2(iv) of the Railway Board’s instructions, and that the order was approved by the DCM (In-charge) rather than the DRM/ADRM.

The respondents asserted administrative approval but did not place sufficient material establishing that the committee was properly constituted or that the approving authority was competent under the governing instructions.

Since the alleged defect concerned the authority and mechanism through which the transfer decision was made, it was not a mere irregularity that could be overlooked by invoking administrative exigency.

The subsequent deployment of the applicant at Katihar also materially altered the circumstances and supported reconsideration of his posting, without conclusively proving that the original transfer was illegal.

It therefore set aside the impugned order, directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s posting/transfer afresh in accordance with the applicable instructions, and required consideration of his representation dated 24 November 2022 and the subsequent deployment order dated 6 March 2023.

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months and to permit the applicant to continue at Katihar until such decision was taken.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the Railways’ substantive administrative requirement to transfer the applicant, left the respondents free to take an appropriate decision after following the prescribed procedure, and made no order as to costs.