Transfer representations must be decided by a reasoned and speaking order without adjudicating the writ petition’s merits.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector serving at Bihar Special Armed Police-02, Dehri, challenged the portion of Office Order No. 65/2026 dated 11 May 2026 by which he was transferred to Bihar Special Armed Police-15, Supaul.

He relied upon an earlier Office Order No. 50/2026 dated 25 March 2026, under which he had been retained at BSAP-02, Dehri on sympathetic and medical grounds.

He had submitted representations, including one dated 14 April 2025 and another dated 23 May 2026, but no decision had been taken on them.

The State acknowledged that the petitioner had made a representation but stated that it remained undecided.

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer from BSAP-02, Dehri to BSAP-15, Supaul was contrary to the BSAP Transfer and Posting Policy and liable to be quashed on the grounds of arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continuation of the earlier order retaining him at BSAP-02, Dehri on medical and compassionate grounds under Clause 6(i) of the BSAP Transfer and Posting Policy?

3. Whether the petitioner’s representations were required to be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order by the competent authority?

The Court referred to the BSAP Transfer and Posting Policy contained in Bihar Special Armed Police Order No. 20 of 2026, Letter No. 521 dated 6 February 2026, including Clause 6(i), concerning exceptional medical and compassionate circumstances.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where an employee raises a policy-based grievance through a pending representation, the competent authority must consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge involved disputed questions concerning the applicability of the BSAP Transfer and Posting Policy, his medical condition, the earlier retention order, and the legality of the subsequent transfer.

Since the petitioner’s representation remained undecided and the State did not dispute that fact, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the transfer or determine whether Clause 6(i) applied. Instead, it adopted a limited procedural approach and directed the petitioner to file his representation before the Inspector General of Police, BSAP, who was required to consider the grievance and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

The Inspector General was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation within 90 days thereafter. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no direct order quashing the transfer or restoring the petitioner to BSAP-02, Dehri.