JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure P-13) issued by respondent No.3, vide which the petitioner has been transferred from SDE (Hort.), Sub Division, Karnal with additional charge of SDE (Hort.), Sonepat to SDE (Hort.), Sub Division Rewari and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay operation and implementation of the impugned order (Annexure P-13) during pendency of the present petition and also to allow him to continue at the present place of posting i.e. SDE (Hort.), Sub Division, Karnal with additional charge of SDE (Hort.), Sonepat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is serving as Sub Divisional Engineer (Horticulture) in Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short ‘HSVP’) and he has been transferred from Karnal to Rewari without serving minimum tenure as prescribed under the Model Online Transfer Policy dated 23.05.2025. As such, transfer is malafide and he has been continuously harassed by Executive Engineer (Horticulture), HSVP, Panchkula. Further, salary of the petitioner has not been disbursed on time and even the annual increment for July, 2025 has been withheld. Feeling aggrieved by the continuous harassment, the petitioner made a complaint dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) against the Executive Engineer (Horticulture), HSVP, Panchkula to the Chief Administrator, HSVP. As such, it is fully established that impugned transfer order was passed as an act of vendetta and victimization in retaliation to the aforesaid complaint. Further, in view of the instructions dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), no transfer order of any employee can be issued without ‘Transfer Advisory’ from the office of Chief Minister, Haryana and the same shall be issued through HRMS transfer online module only. The transfer policy clearly mandates minimum tenure at one station. As such, impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 contend that present petition has become infructuous, as the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that he has already joined the new place of transfer/posting on 11.03.2026 after availing the joining period of 08 days as prescribed under Rule 77 of Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016. Further, the transfer has been made in view of confidential letter dated 03.02.2026 sent by Executive Engineer, HSVP Horticulture Division, Panchkula, addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, in which performance of the petitioner has been duly demonstrated. It has been highlighted that due to negligence of the petitioner, not only the respondent authority suffered loss, but he has been found negligent in performing the official duties on number of occasions. Due to his serious negligence, the petitioner was earlier cautioned on 21.01.2026 to be careful in future while submitting the bills of executed works of contractors/firms for payments to this office. As such, transfer of the petitioner is justified.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that scope of interference in transfer matters is very narrow. The extraordinary powers can be exercised only when apparent malafide is shown and if blatant violation of the policy is found to have been committed. Present case does not fall within those rare circumstances, in which this Court interjected in the transfer drive. Further, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court, justify transfer of the petitioner on administrative grounds.

5. Moreover, the possibility of transfer is essentially interwoven in the service agreement, if not stated otherwise. As such, t