Transfer orders warrant no interference absent statutory violation, mala fides, or other sustainable grounds.

The applicants, Assistant Engineers (Quality Assurance) in the Technical Cadre of DGQA, challenged the rotational transfer order dated 20 July 2017 and consequential movement orders transferring them from Kanpur to other stations.

They contended that the transfers violated the applicable policies for employees working on sensitive posts, including the 7 March 1988 guidelines and the revised DGQA policy dated 24 November 2016, as amended.

The respondents maintained that the transfers were made under the applicable policy and that no employee has a vested right to remain at a particular station.

The applicants also relied on decisions in similar matters and subsequent policy-related communications.

1. Whether the rotational transfer order dated 20 July 2017 and consequential movement orders violated the applicable transfer policies governing the applicants’ postings, including the provisions concerning sensitive posts.

2. Whether the applicants established a legally sustainable ground—such as statutory violation, mala fides or action by an incompetent authority—for interference with the transfer orders.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to challenge the transfer orders.

The Tribunal considered the Government guidelines dated 7 March 1988 and the DGQA Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24 November 2016, as amended, including by the order dated 10 February 2017.

It applied the settled principle that transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service and that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a chosen place, as stated in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 15 SCC 178.

It also relied on State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, for the principle that administrative transfer guidelines do not, by themselves, remove the competent authority’s power to transfer an employee in the public interest or for service exigencies.

Interference with a transfer is therefore limited, including where a statutory provision is violated or mala fides are established.

The Tribunal considered the applicants’ claim that, after completing tenure on sensitive posts, they should have been posted to non-sensitive posts, together with the cited policy documents and subsequent communications.

It held that those materials did not establish that the competent authority was legally prohibited from making the impugned transfers.

The applicants also failed to prove that the order was issued by an incompetent authority, was mala fide, or violated a statutory provision.

Applying the principles that transfer is an ordinary service incident and that the Tribunal should not substitute its assessment for that of the competent administrative authority absent a sustainable legal ground, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

Any interim order was vacated; there was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.