Violation of Transfer Policy Guidelines Does Not Grant Justiciable Right to Challenge Administrative Transfer Orders

The petitioner, Sakshi Dangi, challenged her transfer order dated June 15, 2026, and the subsequent relieving order dated June 29, 2026.

The petitioner contended that she is currently on probation and has not yet been confirmed, rendering her transfer improper.

The respondent (State) opposed the petition, arguing that transfer orders must be implemented within 15 days and that the petitioner was bound to be relieved due to administrative exigencies.

1. Whether a government employee on probation is immune from transfer under the existing service laws and policy guidelines.

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with a transfer order based on a violation of executive transfer policy in the absence of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction.

Transfer is an inherent incidence of service and a prerogative of the employer.

Transfer policies are merely executive instructions without statutory force and do not confer enforceable rights, as established in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, and State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav.

Judicial review of transfers is limited to cases of proven mala fides, violation of statutory/constitutional provisions, or adverse effects on service conditions, as per the Division Bench ruling in Sunil Kumar v. Union of India.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to prove that the transfer order was vitiated by mala fides or issued by an incompetent authority.

Regarding the petitioner's status as a probationer, the Court found that such status does not prohibit the employer from effecting a transfer for administrative exigencies.

The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited; it cannot act as an appellate authority to assess administrative needs or "heart burning" caused by personal inconvenience.

The Court concluded that since the transfer policy consists only of guiding principles for the executive, a violation of such policy does not provide a justiciable right to the employee.

The Court dismissed the challenge to the transfer order but directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) within four weeks.

The petition was disposed of with no stay granted on the transfer.