The court emphasized the necessity of fair consideration of personal circumstances in transfer decisions, without infringing upon the administrative authority's discretion.

ORDER

The applicant is challenging the impugned transfer order dated 30th July, 2025 (Annexure A-1), by which the applicant has been transferred form NITVAR, Pune to NIIH, Mumbai and also challenging the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 (Annexure A-2), by which the representation /request of the applicant for retention at NITVAR, Pune was not considered.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while working on the post of Section Officer, the applicant was transferred from NIV, Pune to NIREH, Bhopal by order dated 03rd September, 2020 and thereafter vide order dated 22^nd June, 2023 (Annexure A-4), he was once again transferred from NIREH, Bhopal to NARI (now renamed as NITVAR), Pune.

2.2 It is submitted that in due course, the applicant became eligible for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and was promoted to the aforesaid post by order dated 21st July, 2025 (Annexure A-5).

2.3 By impugned order dated 30th July, 2025, applicant has been transferred from NITVAR, Pune to NIIH, Mumbai against which representation dated 04th August, 2025 (Annexure A-6) was submitted for retention at NITVAR, Pune in which it was stated that the respondents may also consider withdrawing his promotion from the post of Administrative Officer in order to adjust him as Section Officer in NITVAR, Pune itself. However, the said request of the applicant was not considered and the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 was issued. Thereafter, another representation dated 29th August, 2025 (Annexure A-7) was submitted on the ground that applicant’s son is studying in 12th Standard and is also preparing for NEET Examination 2026 at Pune and on this ground, it is essential that he may be retained at NITVAR, Pune. However, by issuing impugned communication dated 09th September, 2025 (Annexure A-8), applicant was directed to be relieved from his present place of posting w.e.f. 15th September, 2025 and relieving order was issued on 11th September, 2025 (Annexure A-9).

2.4 The aforesaid orders are challenged on the ground that same are illegal and arbitrary. There is no transfer policy framed by ICMR and the applicant’s son is presently studying in 12th Standard. It is further submitted that considering similar ground of 12th Standard, another employee Smt. Shibi Jacob is retained at her current place of posting until 31st March, 2026 and, therefore, there is a discrimination. For the aforesaid purpose, the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ripudaman Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1658 decided on 16th July, 2019.

3. After notice, the respondents have filed reply and contested the OA stating that the applicant was promoted from the post of Section Officer to the post of Accounts Officer on ad-hoc basis vide Office Order dated 08th January, 2025 (Annexure R-1). Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation dated 10th January, 2025 (Annexure R-2) stating that the applicant has worked in the administrative cadre, therefore, the applicant requested to consider his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and not to the post of Accounts Officer. Moreover, the applicant, in his representation dated 10th January, 2025 have also conveyed his willingness to accept the transfer of the applicant from NITVAR, Pune to any of the Institute of ICMR in Mumbai. Thereafter, the applicant patiently waited for revision of his promotion from Accounts Officer to Administrative Officer for the month of January, 2025 till 21st July, 2025 when the applicant was promoted to the post of Administr