IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that transfer orders must be justified and not arbitrary, especially when they impact an employee's career advancement.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC for the respondents.

2. Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 06.12.2024 by which he has been transferred from 92 RCC/44 TF/BMK to HQ CE (P) PSK and he has been directed to move forthwith. By the same transfer order, one Dheeresh Kumar has been posted in place of the petitioner. However, Dheeresh Kumar is not a party to the instant writ petition.

4. Assailing the transfer order, the petitioner through Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner had joined HQ CE (P) Brahmank on 13.02.2024 (FN) as can be seen from the arrival report of the GREF Officer (Annexure-1). Thereafter, within a period of about two months, the petitioner has been transferred to 92 RCC/44 TF/BMK and he had been directed to move by 09.05.2024, vide the order of transfer dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-2). As such, a movement order was issued on 27.04.2024 indicating the date of departure of the petitioner to the new place of posting as 30.04.2024 (FN). The petitioner in view of his transfer within a short period of time met the Director General of Border Roads Organisation, Seema Sadak Bhawan (respondent No. 2) on 01.05.2024 and according to the petitioner, he was assured by the said authority that his transfer and posting to the new location would not be disturbed and that he was being transferred since it was a command post. A fresh movement order was, thereafter, issued and pursuant to which, the petitioner joined the new place of posting on 09.05.2024 (FN).

5. However, to the great surprise of the petitioner vide posting order dated 06.12.2024, he has been posted out from 92 RCC/44 TF/BMK to HQ CE (P) PSK and he has been directed to move forthwith.

6. Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel submits that despite the assurance given to him by the Director General of Border Roads Organisation, he has been transferred out again within a period of seven months to a new location, which is not even a command post and which would be detrimental to the petitioner's career prospect. He submits that in order to be promoted to the next rank of Superintending Engineer, an Officer in the rank of Executive Engineer is required to have command experience of at least two years and by issuance of the impugned posting order dated 06.12 2024, the petitioner will lose his chance of promotion and that he is almost at the fag end of his career in the service.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the posting policy for GREF Officers submits that executive tenures are generally to be for a period of two to three years for the Officers in the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent and above. The same, however, can be curtailed or extended due to organizational requirements or on performance of the Officer. However, in the instant case, according to the petitioner, there is no issue with regard to his performance and merely by stating that in the organizational interest the petitioner has been transferred would not suffice and, therefore, the impugned transfer order has been issued in a most arbitrary manner and should be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 131

(ii) T.S.R. Subramanian and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 732

(iii) Sunit Kumar Bardoloi Vs. State of Assam and Others, 2010 (2) GLT 786

8. Per contra, Mr. K Gogoi, the learned CGC submits that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against his transfer to the new location. He submits that the place to which the petitioner has been transferred out through the impugned transfer order is a vacant p