Transfer rejection without reasons is arbitrary; authorities must reconsider with speaking order.

The applicant, Shri Priyagopal Sarkar, challenged a transfer order dated December 26, 2025, which transferred him from Kolkata to Chennai

He subsequently submitted a representation on January 1, 2026, citing health conditions

This representation was rejected via a common order dated February 17, 2026 (Annexure A-5)

The applicant contended that this rejection order was non-speaking, cryptic, and discriminatory, especially since other applicants had been considered on medical grounds via an order dated January 20, 2026

As of the time of the hearing, the applicant had not been relieved from his post

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's representation against the transfer order was non-speaking, cryptic, and discriminatory

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant's case and maintain the status quo until a reasoned decision is communicated

The Tribunal invoked principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the requirement that administrative orders, particularly those rejecting representations, should be reasoned, speaking, and non-discriminatory

The court's decision hinges on the expectation that authorities provide adequate justification for their decisions, especially when individual rights or legitimate expectations are affected.

The court found that the respondents had "simply rejected the representation of the applicant in a stereotype manner"

This implied a failure to provide a reasoned or "speaking" order, despite the applicant explicitly citing health conditions and alleging discriminatory treatment compared to other cases where medical grounds were considered

The court identified this lack of detailed justification as an issue, suggesting that the initial rejection was not consonant with administrative fairness

Consequently, the court deemed it just to direct reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a speaking order that addresses the applicant's concerns specifically.

The court also noted that the applicant had not been relieved, supporting the directive for status quo

The court directed Respondent No. 4 or any other competent authority to reconsider the applicant's case, treating the O.A. as part of it, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the receipt of the order

Until such time, the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo regarding the applicant

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage