[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10104/2026

Chhatrapal Singh Gour S/o Lt. Shri Madan Singh Gour, Aged

About 32 Years, R/o A-23A, Durgadas Colony, Vaishali Marg

West, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302034, Presently Working As Ldc(S) In

Csd Depot, Jaipur

----Petitioner/Applicant

Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of

Defence, South Block, New Delhi -110001.

2. General Manager And Chairman, Board Of Administration,

Canteen Store Department, Head Office, Adelphi, 119,

M.k. Road, Mumbai - 400020.

3. Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Jaipur Depot,

Piru Lines, Behind Military Hospital, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302006

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari with Mr. Anshuman

Singh Khangarot, Mr. Aditya Mishra,

Mr. Anupam Bhargava and Mr. Rohit

Tiwari

For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS (V. J.)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN (V. J.)

REPORTABLE

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments : 08/06/2026

Date on which the judgment was reserved : 08/06/2026

Whether the full order or only the

operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 10/06/2026

Per Hon'ble Justice (Ashok Kumar Jain)

1.Instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner-applicant

aggrieved from the order dated 26.05.2026 in Original

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (2 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

Application No. 307/2025 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter

referred to as "CAT" or "Tribunal").

2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-applicant was

appointed as LDC (Stores) in the Canteen Stores

Department (CSD), Ministry of Defence, Government of

India, and pursuant to the appointment letter, the petitioner

joined at Bathinda on 14.12.2018. On 27.03.2023, the

petitioner was transferred to Jaipur and, since then, he was

working at Jaipur Depot till he was transferred to HO (Secy

Br) vide order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure-1). The

petitioner filed a representation, but the same was dismissed

on 06.05.2025. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 218/2025

before the CAT, which was disposed of on 13.05.2025.

Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dismissing the

representation dated 06.05.2025 by filing another O.A. No.

230/2025. The Tribunal quashed the order dated 06.05.2025

and disposed of the said O.A. on 15.05.2025 with a direction

to the respondents to decide the representation by a

speaking and reasoned order.

3.The respondents thereafter passed a speaking and reasoned

order on 13.05.2025, which was challenged by filing O.A.

No. 307/2025. The said O.A. was dismissed on 26.05.2026,

observing as under:

"5. Heard. Learned counsel for the

applicant has mainly pressed his

arguments on the basis of transfer policy

claiming that the principle of longest

stayee and choice station has not been

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (3 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

followed by the respondents in

transferring the applicant. Second ground

he has taken is that he was not allowed to

complete the minimum tenure. To

examine that we reproduce sub para (iii)

of para 2 of the Transfer Policy:

"iii) As far as possible, staff will not be

transferred within 2 years of their

retirement unless volunteered or on

promotion and/or due to other

administrative exigencies."

The applicant by now has already

completedminimum tenure of two years

as per thetransfer policy infact he has

completed 03 years by now at Jaipur

Depot in March 2026 and now we are

running Into May 2026 which is more

than 03 year.

Other relevant provisions of the transfer

policy which the respondents have relied

upon are also reproduced as below:

(a) Policy considerations:

THAT as per transfer policy no. 3/Pers/A-

2/1201/1128 dtd 04 Oct 2011:

Para-3(xiv), Organisational and functional

requirement will be an over-riding

consideration for posting.

"Para-3(xxvi). While the administration

will normally observe the norms for

postings on the basis of "Longest stayee

and choice station" as followed hitherto, it

obviously reserves the right to effect

transfer on administrative grounds, if

such a deviation is considered necessary."

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (4 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

Para-5. GM, CSD being Head of

Department, reserves the right to

override relax any of the aforesaid

provisions depending upon the exigencies

of services".

Perusal of the above, clearly shows that

the norm for posting on the basis of

longest stayee and choice station is not

absolute, it is in fact subject to the

administrative exigencies. Organisational

requirement is over-riding factor though

the norms laid down in the transfer policy

should "normally" be observed but are

subject to the administrative

exigencies/organisational interest and as

per para 5 above the competent authority

has the right to override or relax any of

the provisions depending upon the

exigencies of service and in the present

case in their impugned speaking order

dated 30.05.2025 the respondents have

clearly stated that transfer from Jaipur to

Mumbai was made to meet the exigencies

of work at Headquarter (Secretariat

Branch) Mumbai due to shortage of staff

there in view of the organisational

requirements.

6. As to the list of 25 employees which

the applicant has annexed claiming that

they are station seniors, the respondents

side has controverted stating that out of

25, none of the 22 are LDC Stores

whereas the applicant is LDC Stores. As

to the remaining 03 out of that one Shri

Anuj Kumar has already been transferred

and the second person i.e. Harish Yadav

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (5 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

has also applied for transfer and his

application is being considered. So, In

other words, only 01 person who holds

the same post as the applicant is still

serving at Jaipur station.

7. It is a settled proposition of law that it

is for the employer organization to decide

and deploy the employees at different

places depending upon the organisational

needs. Since it is the responsibility of the

employer department to run the

administration effectively as such they

also have the authority/power to deploy

the manpower optimally. The transfer

policies are broad guidelines to be

followed and observed in the normal

course but are not mandatory and cannot

be enforced to be followed word by word.

In any case, the scope of interference of

the courts/tribunals is very limited and is

called upon only in cases where

authorities are acting either without

competence or grossly arbitrarily and in

the present case nothing of the sorts has

been found.

8. The applicant has till date served at

Jaipur CSD Depot for more than 03 years

whereas the minimum tenure as per the

transfer policy is 02 years and his

contention that as many as 25 station

seniors are presently working at the

Jaipur Depot is wrong (as we have

distinguish the same in the preceding

paras). Besides, the respondents have

also stated in the impugned order that all

employees of CSD are covered under all-

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (6 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

India service liability and the applicant

himself had also given undertaking to that

effect.

9. One of the contentions of the applicant

that he cannot be transferred from Jaipur

to Mumbai which is about 1200 Kms,

cannot be accepted because when he

accepted the present employment he very

much accepted the terms and conditions

of the service and one of such was pan-

India transfer liability.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the

appointment letter dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure-3),

submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of

LDC (Stores) and is entitled to be posted only in the Stores

Department and not at the Head Office as directed in the

impugned transfer order. He also submitted that the

appointment order does not contain any condition which

empowers the respondents to transfer the petitioner to the

Head Office or any other wing except stores.

5.He further referred to the Transfer Policy of Group 'C'

employees issued by the respondents on 04.10.2011 and

submitted that there are six grounds on which a person in

the Group 'C' category can be transferred from one place to

another. He also submitted that it was the duty of the

administration to follow "the longest stay and choice

station formula" before exercising the option to transfer

any employee, on administrative ground. He further

submitted that the petitioner has not completed even a

regular tenure of three years, yet he has been transferred

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (7 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

from Jaipur to HO, Mumbai. He also referred to the list of 25

persons presently posted at Jaipur and senior to the present

petitioner and submitted that, while considering the case of

transfer of the petitioner they were not considered on the

basis of the longest stayee formula and the petitioner alone

was selected and transferred. He also submitted that three

persons were junior to the petitioner, and even in case of

administrative exigencies, they were not considered for

transfer from Jaipur to HO Mumbai.

6.Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner

was not paid bonus for the year 2022-23 and the petitioner

had sent an e-mail to the Defence Minister and further

sought information under the RTI Act, and this was only

trigger point, which prompted the respondents to take action

against the petitioner, so as to suppress his voice. He further

submitted that no disciplinary proceedings or any instance of

indiscipline were ever noticed against the petitioner and,

despite good service record, the petitioner was vindictively

and arbitrarily transferred from Jaipur to HO Mumbai.

7.Learned counsel further submitted that when there is a

transfer policy, which is a binding nature of document, the

respondents are duty-bound to observe the guidelines,

contained therein in letter and spirit, so as to become modal

employer. He also referred to the dismissal of his

representation and submitted that, after exhausting the

remedy, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the

Tribunal, without appreciating the grounds raised by the

petitioner, dismissed the O.A. He also referred to the

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (8 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

administrative exigencies and submitted that not a single

iota of material has been placed on record to show as to

what were the administrative exigencies which prompted the

respondents to transfer the petitioner nearly 1200 kilometers

far from current place of posting. He also submitted that the

respondents are under an obligation to demonstrate the

reasons behind the transfer and also to disclose the same

when a representation is filed by the petitioner.

8.None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service

in the office of the learned Additional Solicitor General.

9.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material placed on record.

10.The instant matter relates to the transfer of the petitioner

from one place to another. It is well settled that transfer is

an incident of service, meaning thereby that an employee

has no vested right to remain posted at a particular post or

at a particular station. A writ court under Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India can interfere only if the petitioner is

able to establish that the transfer order is mala fide or

beyond the competence of the issuing authority.

11.In the case of Sheela Suryavanshi vs. State of A.P.,

reported in 2020 SCC OnLine HP 1295 , a Division Bench

of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, after considering the

judgments in the cases of B. Varadha Rao vs. State of

Karnataka, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, Shilpi Bose

vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659,

and Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India, reported in

(1993) 1 SCC 148 , observed that the Government and

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (9 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

likewise Public Sector Undertakings are expected to function

as model employers. A model employer is under an

obligation to conduct itself with high probity and is duty-

bound to treat its employees equally and in an appropriate

manner so that the employees are not condemned to fall

subservient to the situation. A model employer should not

exploit the employees and take advantage of their

helplessness and misery.

12.In case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India (supra)

Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:

"7. It is true that the order of transfer often

causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in

the family set up of the concerned

employees but on that score the order of

transfer is not liable to be struck down.

Unless such order is passed mala fide or in

violation of the rules of service and

guidelines for transfer without any proper

justification, the Court and the Tribunal

should not interfere with the order of

transfer. In a transferable post an order of

transfer is a normal consequence and

personal difficulties are matters for

consideration of the department. We arc in

agreement with the Central Administrative

Tribunal that the appellant has not been

able to lay any firm foundation to

substantiate the case of malice or mala fide

against the respondents is passing the

impugned order of transfer. It does not

appear to us that the appellant has been

moved out just to get rid of him and the

impugned order of transfer was passed

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (10 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

mala fide by seizing an opportunity to

transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta.

It may not be always possible to establish

malice in fact in a straight cut manner. In

an appropriate case, it is possible to draw

reasonable inference of mala fide action

from the pleadings and antecedent facts

and circumstances. But for such inference

there must be firm foundation of facts

pleaded and established. Such inference

cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation

and vague suggestions. In this case, we are

unable to draw any inference of mala fide

action in transferring the appellant from the

facts pleaded before the Tribunal. It

appears that Shri Patra was transferred to

Calcutta and after joining the post he had

made representation on account of

personal bordship. Such representation was

considered and a decision was taken to

transfer him back to Orissa region. As a

result, a necessity arose to transfer an

employee to Calcutta to replace Shri Patra.

It cannot be reasonably contended by the

appellant that he should have been spared

and some one else would have been

transferred. The appellant has not made

any representation about the personal

hardship to the department. As such there

was no occasion for the department to

consider such representation. This appeal,

therefore, fails and is dismissed but we

make no order as to costs. It is, however,

made clear that the appellant will be free to

make representation to the concerned

department about personal hardship, if any,

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (11 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

being suffered by the appellant in view of

the impugned order. It is reasonably

expected that if such representation is

made, the same should be considered by

the department as expeditiously as

practicable."

13.In case of State of U.P. and Another versus Siya Ram

and Another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 , the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"No government servant or employee of a

public undertaking has any legal right to be

posted forever at any one particular place or

place of his choice since transfer of a

particular employee appointed to the class or

category of transferable posts from one place

to other is not only an incident, but a condition

of service, necessary too in public interest and

efficiency in the public administration. Unless

an order of transfer is shown to be an

outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be

in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting

any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals

normally cannot interfere with such orders as

a matter of routine, as though they were the

appellate authorities substituting their own

decision for that of the

employer/management, as against such

orders passed in the interest of administrative

exigencies of the service concerned.

The above position was recently highlighted in

Union of India and others v. Janardhan

Debanath and another (2004 (4) SCC

243). It has to be noted that the High Court

proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (12 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

connected with the departmental proceedings.

There was not an iota of material to arrive at

the conclusion. No mala fides could be

attributed as the order was purely on

administrative grounds and in public interest."

14.In case of State of U.P. versus Gobardhan Lal, reported

in (2004) 11 SCC 402, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

"It is too late in the day for any Government

Servant to contend that once appointed or

posted in a particular place or position, he

should continue in such place or position as

long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is

not only an incident inherent in the terms of

appointment but also implicit as an essential

condition of service in the absence of any

specific indication to the contra, in the law

governing or conditions of service. Unless the

order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of

a mala fide exercise of power or violative of

any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or

passed by an authority not competent to do so,

an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered

with as a matter of course or routine for any or

every type of grievance sought to be made.

Even administrative guidelines for regulating

transfers or containing transfer policies at best

may afford an opportunity to the officer or

servant concerned to approach their higher

authorities for redress but cannot have the

consequence of depriving or denying the

competent authority to transfer a particular

officer/servant to any place in public interest

and as is found necessitated by exigencies of

service as long as the official status is not

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (13 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

affected adversely and there is no infraction of

any career prospects such as seniority, scale of

pay and secured emoluments. This Court has

often reiterated that the order of transfer made

even in transgression of administrative

guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as

they do not confer any legally enforceable

rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be

vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of

any statutory provision."

15.In case of Rajendra Singh versus State of U.P., reported

in (2009) 15 SCC 178 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed as under:

"5. A Government Servant has no vested right

to remain posted at a place of his choice nor

can he insist that he must be posted at one

place or the other. He is liable to be transferred

in the administrative exigencies from one place

to the other. Transfer of an employee is not

only an incident inherent in the terms of

appointment but also implicit as an essential

condition of service in the absence of any

specific indication to the contrary. No

Government can function if the Government

Servant insists that once appointed or posted

in a particular place or position, he should

continue in such place or position as long as he

desires.

6. The courts are always reluctant in

interfering with the transfer of an employee

unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of

some statutory provisions or suffers from mala

fides. In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) &

Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra) this Court

held :

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (14 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

“4. In our opinion, the courts should not

interfere with a transfer order which is made in

public interest and for administrative reasons

unless the transfer orders are made in violation

of any mandatory statutory rule or on the

ground of mala fide. A government servant

holding a transferable post has no vested right

to remain posted at one place or the other, he

is liable to be transferred from one place to the

other. Transfer orders issued by the competent

authority do not violate any of his legal rights.

Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of

executive instructions or orders, the courts

ordinarily should not interfere with the order

instead affected party should approach the

higher authorities in the department. If the

courts continue to interfere with day-to- day

transfer orders issued by the government and

its subordinate authorities, there will be

complete chaos in the administration which

would not be conducive to public interest. The

High Court overlooked these aspects in

interfering with the transfer orders."

16.In light of the aforesaid principles, we are considering the

grounds as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in

support of the claim of the petitioner to quash the transfer

order issued by the respondents. The Tribunal has already

dismissed the O.A., finding no merit in the grounds raised by

the petitioner.

17.The first ground of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

appointed as LDC (Stores) and he could not be transferred

other than CSD Stores. The appointment order is placed on

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (15 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

record and indicates that the petitioner was appointed on the

post of LDC (Stores) in CSD, Ministry of Defence. The

appointment letter dated 16.11.2018 clearly indicates that

the services of the petitioner shall be governed by the

service conditions (including rules) as mentioned therein and

it includes the applicability of the Conduct Rules.

18.It is a settled proposition under administrative law that the

worth and suitability of an employee must be left to the

bona-fide decision of the employer and he is the appropriate

and best person to judge the posting and deployment of any

person upon the requirement of the department. The

principle regarding determination of suitability for any

particular post is the sole discretion of the employer and the

authority of any employer cannot be undermined or

interfered with by any court of law. The Court cannot

scrutinize the suitability of an individual or substitute its

opinion.

19.The appointment letter clearly indicates that the petitioner is

posted in the Canteen Stores Department of the Ministry of

Defence and the Head Office is Mumbai. The petitioner was

initially appointed at Bathinda, which means that as per the

rules and regulations, he is likely to be posted and

transferred to any other place under the CSD, Mumbai. Any

LDC posted in CSD Stores does not mean that he has any

right not to be considered for posting at the back-end office

or the administrative wing of said store. The posting as LDC

in H.O. clearly means that instead of posting the petitioner

at any store, his services have been taken at the

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (16 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

administrative office. None of the condition in the

appointment order give any right to petitioner to remain

posted only in Stores or field.

20.The second ground of the petitioner is implementation of the

Transfer Policy dated 04.10.2011. The Transfer Policy clearly

indicates that employees of Group 'C' will be liable for

transfer on the following grounds:

a.On their own request.

B.On volunteering to serve at hard stations and field

stations/new Depots in response to HO circular.

c.On promotion.

d.On tenure completion.

e.On compassionate ground.

f.On administrative ground.

The aforementioned grounds include transfer on

administrative grounds.

20.1Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred Guideline

No. 3(xxvi) and the same is reproduced as under:

"While the administration will normally

observe the norms for postings on the basis of

"Longest stayee and choice station" as

followed hitherto, it obviously reserves the

right to effect transfer on administrative

grounds, if such a deviation is considered

necessary."

21.In case of Union of India versus S.L. Abbas, reported in

AIR 1993 SC 2444 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered

the guidelines regarding transfer and observed that it does

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (17 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

not confer upon any Government employee a legal and

enforceable right. The observation is reproduced as under:

"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for

the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the

order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made

in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court

cannot interfere with it. While ordering the

transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must

keep in mind the guidelines issued by the

Government on the subject. Similarly if a person

makes any representation with respect to his

transfer, the appropriate authority must consider

the same having regard to the exigencies of

administration. The guidelines say that as far as

possible, husband and wife must be posted at the

same place. The said guideline however does not

confer upon the government employee a legally

enforceable right."

22.The aforementioned judgment was considered in the case of

Mohammad Masood Ahmad versus State of U.P.,

reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 , and in the case of Major

Amod Kumar versus Union of India, reported in (2018)

18 SCC 478, and it was held that a transfer order, unless

contrary to the rules or mala fide, cannot be interfered with.

23.The Transfer Policy was further considered by a Division

Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of

Union of India versus Surendra Kumar, D.B. Special

Appeal No. 720/2024, decided on 06.09.2024 , and it

was held that transfer orders in the Forces are primarily

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (18 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

administrative decisions and interference is only warranted

in case of statutory violation or malafides.

24.Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled for

enforcement of the Transfer Policy dated 04.10.2011, as the

same is just a guideline to be considered at the time of

making transfer of an individual upon whom the policy is

applicable. The transfer policy cannot be enforced against

respondents by invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution

of India.

25.Now comes another ground under the policy, that is

Guideline No. 3(xxvi), whereby the respondents are under

an obligation to follow the guideline related to longest stay

and choice of station. The petitioner has referred to a list of

25 persons senior to him and three persons junior to him

who are liable and eligible to be transferred to H.O. Again,

suitability of a person to a particular post means reverse

proposition as well. A person, if not found suitable to be

continued at any place, and necessary to transfer to

maintain discipline, then it is also a ground not to follow said

clause under the policy.

26.As referred in the preceding paragraphs, we have made it

clear that the Transfer Policy is not to be treated as a binding

rule between the petitioner-employee and the respondent-

employer. The petitioner has no right to enforce the

provisions of the Transfer Policy as a violation of

fundamental or constitutional rights, and the same is well

settled till date.

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (19 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

27.Now comes the ground of mala fide and arbitrariness. The

petitioner has claimed that he had sent an e-mail to the

Defence Minister and later sought information under the RTI

Act, 2005. The material on record indicates that the

petitioner sought information under the RTI Act and the

same was provided to the petitioner on 16.12.2025. We have

considered the information provided to the petitioner, about

grant of bonus. The issue regarding grant of bonus was

pending for decision.

28.The petitioner has also filed an application on 07.11.2023

raising an issue about deployment under a junior person.

The petitioner submitted a representation against his

transfer, which was considered by the respondents, and on

30.05.2025 an order was passed dismissing the

representation.

29.The transfer order dated 03.02.2025 indicates that three

persons were transferred and all the three were posted at

HO (Secy Br.). The transfer of the petitioner was not passed

in isolation; rather, three persons were posted at the same

place under the same order.

30.The order dated 30.05.2025 passed by "AGM (Pers) for

General Manager" indicates that the respondents have

manifested that all employees of the CSD are governed by

all India service liability. The petitioner was transferred from

Bathinda to Jaipur on his own request, means he was

transferred on his own choice. The petitioner was working at

Jaipur Depot since March, 2023 and the transfer order was

issued on 03.02.2025. The transfer order was further stayed

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (20 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

by the Tribunal, which was ultimately vacated on

26.05.2026, meaning thereby that the petitioner remained

posted at Jaipur Depot from March 2023 to 26.05.2026 i.e.

for more than three years. Normally, the tenure prescribed in

the Transfer Policy is two years to three years. Therefore,

serving at one place continuously for two years does not give

rise to any speculation that a person has been transferred

permaturely.

31.The disposal of the representation on 30.05.2025 clearly

indicates that the petitioner was transferred only because of

the functional requirement of the department. It clearly

indicates that the petitioner was transferred on

administrative ground, and administrative ground is the

choice of the employer to relocate any employee to fulfil

organizational needs, manage functional requirements, or

resolve any conflict relating to the workplace. Any transfer

on administrative ground is not an arbitrary decision and the

same can only be challenged if mala fide is proved. However,

in the absence of mala fide and vindictiveness, the Court

cannot interfere with an order of transfer, which has been

issued purely on administrative needs and exigencies.

32.Having gone through the entire record of the case and also

the grounds as raised by the petitioner, we do not find any

mala fide intention on the part of the respondents behind the

transfer of the petitioner, as there is no evidence to establish

any personal vendetta on the part of any of the

respondent(s). The issues raised, such as non-payment of

bonus and working under a junior, have not turned into a

[2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB] (21 of 21) [CW-10104/2026]

personal conflict to presume vindictiveness or anything to

suggest that the transfer was made on account of hostile

atmosphere or as a disciplinary measure by the respondents.

33.Considering the grounds in light of the legal position as

discussed hereinabove, the transfer of the petitioner was

undertaken only on administrative ground and, when a

person is transferred on administrative ground, then he has

no grievance to raise before any court of law. The petitioner

has already served two years in terms of regular posting and

one year on the basis of interim stay granted by the

Tribunal. When a transfer order is an administrative order

and the petitioner has failed to prove mala fide, in particular

malice in fact or malice in law, then he is not entitled to any

relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while

dismissing the O.A.

34.In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition

preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India is hereby dismissed along with pending

application(s), if any.

35.No order as to costs.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN (V. J.)),J (UMA SHANKER VYAS (V. J.)),J

8/PREETI VALECHA