Transfer representations must be decided through reasoned, speaking orders addressing the employee’s substantive grounds.

The petitioner, a Middle Teacher at Government Middle School, Matmur, Block Rajpur, was transferred by order dated 15.06.2026 to Government Middle School, Kanjakua, Block Barwani, approximately 100 km from his existing posting.

He challenged the transfer in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation; meanwhile, he was permitted to continue at his existing place of posting.

In his representation dated 06.07.2026, the petitioner relied on his 45% disability, the fact that his wife was also a government teacher posted approximately 3 km from his existing workplace, and the difficulty of commuting to the proposed posting, particularly as he resided at Sendhwa.

The representation was rejected on 25.08.2026 without addressing these grounds, and the petitioner was relieved on 27.08.2026.

He challenged the rejection order, the relieving order, and the original transfer order.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative decision affecting a person prejudicially must disclose reasons and cannot be supported retrospectively by reasons absent from the order.

It relied on M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, which holds that reasons are an essential component of fair administrative decision-making, operate as a restraint against arbitrariness, demonstrate consideration of relevant factors, and facilitate judicial review.

The Court also considered the protections afforded to persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the applicable State transfer policy.

Although transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and a transfer order need not generally contain reasons, an authority specifically directed to decide a representation must meaningfully consider and deal with the grounds raised.

The Court found that the order dated 25.08.2026 recorded only that the petitioner’s representation was “not satisfactory” and did not address any of his three grounds, including his 45% disability, the statutory and policy protections applicable to disabled persons, the employment and nearby posting of his wife, or the asserted difficulty of commuting to the transferred location.

Since the Court had expressly directed the respondents to decide the representation, the authority was required to apply its mind to the petitioner’s specific submissions rather than issue a conclusory rejection.

The absence of reasons rendered the decision unreasonable and prevented effective judicial review.

In light of the petitioner’s disability and the relevant family and posting circumstances, the Court further held that the transfer itself could not be sustained as against the petitioner.

It quashed the order dated 25.08.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation and the consequential relieving order dated 27.08.2026.

It also quashed the transfer order dated 15.06.2026 to the extent it related to the petitioner and directed the respondents to permit him to continue at his existing place of posting.