Permissibility And Scope Of Judicial Review Against Transfer Orders

The authorities possess unrestricted authority to transfer its staff, taking into account the demands of public interest and administrative necessities. An employee of the State government who occupies a post that is transferable may be moved to a different location. A transferable post employee does not have the right to stay posted at a specific location, and judges are generally not allowed to tamper with transfer orders because doing so would also be considered interfering with the administration's operations.

Another major aspect of this issue is the transfer of employees and union leaders in private companies as well as government administration. Given the established legal framework, a government employee who is transferred in violation of the state's notified transfer policy does not have the right to challenge the transfer on the grounds that the policy was broken. Notably, administrative guidelines differ from statutory rules in this regard. The court should determine that there is no justification for intervening with the contested order. An equitable and transparent distribution of government employees across various locations should be guaranteed, with the aim of enhancing employee job satisfaction and advancing departmental performance.

Leading case laws on this issue are as following:

1. Rajendra Roy v. Union of India & Another, (1993) 1 SCC 148^[1] - The Supreme court held that in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department.

2. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, (1986) 4 SCC 131^[2] - The Supreme court held in this case that it is an accepted principle that in public service, transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage.

3. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659^[3] -the factual structure of the case was that there was a situation of certain female teachers being transferred to primary schools in the state of Bihar. They moved on their own initiative. They request the locations where their spouses were assigned. The District Education Establishment Committee made the transfer orders. The Patna High Court heard a challenge to the transfer decision from the displaced teachers, who argued that the District Education Establishment Committee lacked jurisdiction. The Patna High Court granted the petition, overturned the transfer decision, and ordered the respondents to be re-posted. In the end, the case was taken to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Patna High Court's ruling and held the following: 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.

The Supreme Court ruled that a government employee with a transferable position is subject to relocation and does not have the legal right to stay in one location. Nothing in the transfer orders issued by the appropriate authority infringes upon his legal rights.

4. Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & Others 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169^[4] -It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer.

5. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, 2001 (8) SCC 574^[5] – The Apex Court held that 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.

6. State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402
   ^[6]- it was held that 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.

7. Sk. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1^[7] – The Supreme Court ruled that the exigencies of service should determine whether and where an employee should be placed. An employee's ability to request a transfer or posting of their choosing is not a fundamental right, nor is it a vested right either.

Another major aspect of this issue is the transfer of employees and union leaders in private companies as well as government administration. Given the established legal framework, a government employee who is transferred in violation of the state's notified transfer policy does not have the right to challenge the transfer on the grounds that the policy was broken. Notably, administrative guidelines differ from statutory rules in this regard. The court should determine that there is no justification for intervening with the contested order. An equitable and transparent distribution of government employees across various locations should be guaranteed, with the aim of enhancing employee job satisfaction and advancing departmental performance.

In light of the foregoing debate, it is possible to draw the following conclusions: an employee does not have a fundamental right to be posted at a location of their choosing, and transfers are conditions of employment. The employer has the authority to transfer an employee, as they are the ones who decide where the person will be posted and how long they will be needed there. It is always necessary to pass a transfer order justly, fairly, and reasonably—not capriciously or irrationally. The courts' ability to interfere with transfer orders is restricted, and they will only do so in cases where the order violates a statute or is founded on fraud. Courts lack the authority to invalidate any transfer order on the grounds that it will burden the employee or his family since administrative needs take precedence over the personal comfort of individual employees. The public interest and the smooth operation of the company where they work are the driving forces behind employee transfers, and the extent of judicial scrutiny in transfer decisions is restricted.

Author - Palak Kumari, second year law student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University . Views are personal.