Transfer rejection orders must state cogent administrative reasons, particularly when children’s education warrants retention.

The applicant, a Scientist ‘D’ in the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), was posted at the South Western Region, Bengaluru, since 2021.

By transfer order dated 01.04.2026, issued in respect of 35 officers, he was transferred to the State Unit Office, Belagavi, on the stated ground of public interest.

The applicant had completed the prescribed tenure under the CGWB Rotational Transfer Policy and was liable for transfer under its all-India service conditions.

He challenged the transfer and sought retention at Bengaluru until completion of the academic year of his daughter, who was studying in Class XII.

He also contended that he was a single parent and had been designated as a Nodal Officer for the Jal Sanchay: Jan Bhagidari project, which was to continue in phases up to 2028.

His representation dated 07.04.2026 was rejected on 27.04.2026 by stating only that it had been considered but could not be accepted.

The applicant relied on orders granting extensions to other transferred officers and alleged arbitrariness and discrimination.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from Bengaluru to Belagavi was liable to be interfered with on the ground of arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or violation of the CGWB Rotational Transfer Policy and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s representation was legally sustainable when it did not disclose the administrative grounds or public interest necessitating his immediate transfer.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to retention at Bengaluru until the completion of the academic year of his daughter and in view of his assignment as a JSJB Nodal Officer.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and that an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain at a particular station: State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Judicial review of a transfer is ordinarily limited to cases involving violation of a mandatory statutory provision, mala fides, or extraneous considerations; courts and tribunals should not substitute their view for that of the administration on the expediency of a transfer.

At the same time, Articles 14 and 16 prohibit arbitrary State action, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, and administrative decisions must be based on relevant and rational considerations.

The Tribunal further relied on Director of School Education, Madras v. O. Karuppa Thevan, Pushkar Naraian Sharma v. Union of India, and Dr. Shanthikumari v. Union of India, which recognise that the educational interests of children, particularly during Class X or XII examinations, should receive due consideration where service exigencies are not urgent.

It also relied on the principle that an order based on public interest or administrative grounds must disclose the relevant reasons, particularly while deciding a representation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s transfer had been issued by the competent authority and was broadly consistent with the applicable Rotational Transfer Policy, since he had completed the prescribed tenure at Bengaluru.

It therefore rejected the allegation of a vested right to remain at the existing station and found no established case of mala fide discrimination merely because other officers had received extensions.

However, the transfer order and the order rejecting the applicant’s representation were entirely cryptic and did not disclose the specific administrative exigency or public interest requiring his immediate transfer.

This omission was inconsistent with the respondents’ claim that each representation had been independently assessed on administrative, operational, and functional grounds.

The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s daughter’s Class XII education and his designation as JSJB Nodal Officer.

Applying the authorities favouring limited retention during a child’s crucial academic year, and noting that his continued assignment could serve public interest, it held that these factors had not been adequately considered.

The Tribunal set aside the transfer order dated 01.04.2026 and the rejection order dated 27.04.2026.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s request for retention until the end of his daughter’s academic year.

If retention was refused, they were required to issue a detailed speaking order clearly stating the administrative grounds or public interest necessitating his immediate transfer; alternatively, they were directed to retain him at the Bengaluru office until 31.03.2027 and thereafter relieve him to join at Belagavi.

If retained, the applicant was required to furnish an undertaking to join the transferred post upon completion of the academic year.

No order as to costs was made.