Transfer orders pursuant to promotion on terminal grounds must be stayed pending consideration of representation.

The petitioner, a Head Constable (Nursing Assistant) at BSF Tekanpur, challenged a transfer/promotion order dated 17.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) promoting him to ASI (Medics).

The petitioner joined his current posting on 26.03.2025 and is due for superannuation on 31.10.2028.

He contended that entering his terminal years of service (within three years of retirement), BSF Academy instructions prohibit transfers to "hard areas" if a terminal posting has been accepted.

Despite a recommendation from the I.G. Medical to cancel the posting order on genuine grounds, the respondents had not decided on the petitioner's representations to forgo the promotion to remain at his current station.

1. Whether the court should exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 to interfere with a transfer order issued on promotion.

2. Whether the respondent-authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding the forgoing of promotion and terminal posting policy.

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and employees have no vested right to a specific posting.

Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases involving mala fide intentions or arbitrary exercise of power.

Constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 16 generally does not apply to transfer cases.

The court also recognized the internal administrative instructions of the BSF Academy which suggest that personnel within three years of retirement (terminal period) should not be transferred to hard areas.

The court observed that while it cannot generally interfere with the employer's right to organize its workforce, the petitioner presented a specific grievance regarding his upcoming retirement in October 2028.

The court noted the petitioner’s willingness to forgo financial upgradation and promotion to remain at his current station under "terminal ground" policies.

Given that the I.G. Medical had already recommended the cancellation of the transfer order and the petitioner’s representations remained pending, the court found it appropriate to direct an administrative resolution rather than a judicial reversal on merits.

The court relied on the precedent of Natthu Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No.31488/2024) to support a time-bound administrative direction.

It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks and the respondent/competent authority is ordered to decide the representation via a reasoned order within six weeks of receipt.

Crucially, the court granted interim relief, directing that the petitioner be continued at his present place of posting (BSF Tekanpur) until the respondent takes a final decision.