Transfer is an inherent incident of service, and an employee has no vested right to a specific posting. Judicial interference is limited to cases where the transfer is proven to be mala fide or in violation of explicit statutory provisions, as internal guidelines do not confer enforceable legal rights.

Judgment

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 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 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 completed minimum tenure of two years as per the transfer 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."

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