Transfer representations based on policy and personal hardship require reasoned consideration before implementation.

The applicant, a Chemical Assistant appointed on 14 July 2020 and posted at the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, was transferred to the Central Excise and Customs Laboratory, Vadodara, by Establishment Order No. 15/2026 dated 29 April 2026, where she was placed at Serial No. 59.

She challenged the transfer on the grounds that her son was studying in Class XI and that her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law were located or receiving treatment in Delhi.

She also relied on Clause 5(iii) of the CRCL transfer policy dated 8 February 2018, which provided that officers whose children were studying in Classes X or XII should ordinarily not be disturbed during that academic year.

The respondents subsequently passed an order dated 22 May 2026 keeping the transfer in abeyance until further orders.

The applicant and Mr. Ved Prakash Bairwa, who had been transferred to CRCL, submitted a joint request for mutual retention, embodied in the applicant’s representation dated 16 September 2026, which remained pending.

During the hearing, the applicant confined her relief to consideration of that representation and interim protection against relieving.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s pending representation dated 16 September 2026 against her transfer from CRCL, New Delhi to Vadodara, in accordance with law and by a reasoned order?

Whether the applicant should be permitted to continue at CRCL, New Delhi until her representation was decided and, if rejected, for a further period after communication of the decision?

Transfer is an incident of service, and courts or tribunals ordinarily should not interfere with a transfer order unless it is shown to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory provision; breach of administrative transfer guidelines ordinarily gives the employee a right to seek redress from the competent authority rather than an automatic right to judicial cancellation of the transfer.

The Tribunal relied on Namrata Verma v. State of U.P., SLP (Civil) No. 36717/2017, order dated 6 September 2021, and the principles stated in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, among other authorities.

It further applied the principle that representations based on personal hardship should be considered expeditiously, as stated in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148.

The Tribunal also relied on Director of School Education v. Karuppa Thevan, (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 666, for the principle that, except in cases of pressing urgency, transfers during the academic year that disturb children’s education should ordinarily be avoided.

The relevant transfer-policy provision concerning children studying in Classes X and XII was treated as a matter requiring consideration by the competent authority rather than as an independent basis for directly setting aside the transfer.

The Tribunal noted that the transfer order had already been kept in abeyance by the respondents and that the applicant’s representation, including her grounds relating to her child’s education, family circumstances, medical issues, and mutual retention request, was pending consideration.

Consistent with the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters, the Tribunal declined to determine the merits of the transfer or to cancel it outright.

Instead, applying the principles requiring expeditious consideration of hardship-based representations and avoiding unnecessary disruption to a child’s education during the academic year, it directed the competent respondents to examine every contention and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicant’s representation dated 16 September 2026 expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant was permitted to continue at her original place of posting, CRCL, New Delhi, until the representation was decided.

If the decision was adverse, the respondents were directed not to implement the transfer for fifteen days from the date on which the decision was communicated to the applicant.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.