Transfer orders in public service are subject to statutory guidelines, but courts refrain from interfering unless allegations of mala fides are substantiated or statutory violations are clear.

JUDGMENT

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.

[1] Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sushruta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA assisted by Mrs. R.K. Emily, learned Deputy GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ningtamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. None appeared for the respondent No. 4, despite service of notice.

The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 27-03-2025 in respect of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 3 only.

[2] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following grounds in assailing the impugned transfer order:-

(i) The impugned transfer order had been issued by the authorities arbitrarily and with malafide intention to oust the petitioner from his present place of posting in order to bring another person of their choice; and (ii) The impugned transfer order had been issued in violation of the transfer policy of the State Government as notified on 12-05-2022 and as such, the impugned transfer order is a nullity in the eyes of law.

[3] Elaborating the first ground, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has been sincerely discharging his duties and sincerely looking after 10 (ten) projects under his present place of posting. However, a junior who is under probation had been transferred and posted in his place and that transferring out an experienced officer and bringing in an inexperienced officer, who is under probation and that too on the verge of completion of the ten projects executed by the petitioner lacks rationality and that the same had not been issued in public interest but with an ulterior motive.

3.1 It has been submitted that from the chain of events as narrated in the writ petition regarding the hostile attitude shown by the respondent No. 2, viz., MD, MSPCL towards the petitioner for his acts and omissions, such as –

(a) The petitioner's alleged involvement in litigation against the respondent No. 2;

(b) Writing a letter dated 04-03-2025 requesting the Commissioner (Power), Government of Manipur, pointing out the deficiency and non-inclusion of three sub-stations under the SSD-II in the report submitted by the respondent No. 2;

(c) Declining to accede to the request made by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner to put up liability for an amount of about Rupees 2 crore under the SASCI;

(d) Request made by the petitioner for engagement of manpower on daily wages basis to fill up the shortage of manpower;

(e) Request made by the petitioner with regard to the non-release of reimbursement fund and for raising objection with regard to the transferring out staff serving under the petitioner, etc., has clearly revealed the arbitrariness and malafide intention on the part of the authorities in issuing the impugned transfer order and that the same had been issued with an ulterior motive to victimize the petitioner and to bring in a person of their choice in place of the petitioner.

[4] With regard to the other ground raised by the learned senior counsel, it has been submitted that under the policy for transfer and posting of the Government employees of the State of Manipur as notified on 12-05-2022, it has been, inter alia, provided that –

"III General Conditions:

"(ii) No transfer may be effected unless the concerned employee has completed 1 (one) year and 6 (six) months in a post, unless there are compelling reasons/ circumstances to do so.”

(viii) Transfers shall