2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeeva Kumar, M(A), Ajay Pratap Singh, M(J)
Girish Kumar Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA 4491/2025 | MA 1807/2026

An employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to a particular posting. Judicial review of transfers is limited to cases of statutory violation, malafides, or lack of jurisdiction. Administrative guidelines do not confer enforceable rights.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial review - Transfer is an incident of service - An employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to claim posting at a place of choice - Courts should not interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide - Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, courts ordinarily should not interfere - Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting (Paras 15-23, 25, 31, 39).

(B) Service Law - Transfer - Scope of judicial review - The scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited, being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision - A court or tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions of the administration in transfer matters (Paras 16-23, 35).

(C) Service Law - Transfer - Caregiver - DoPT OM dated 02.02.2024 - Guidelines for exemption from transfer for a sole caregiver to a dependent person with disabilities are administrative instructions and do not have statutory force - In administrative constraints, a caregiver can be transferred - No circular or statutory provision has been shown that under no circumstances, a sole caregiver can be transferred (Para 32).

(D) Service Law - Transfer - Mala fides - Allegations of mala fides are not to be accepted lightly and must be supported by convincing and cogent material - Mere existence of some allegations against an officer which on inquiry had been found to be untrue is not a basis for quashing a transfer order - The plea of mala fides must be specifically pleaded and proved (Paras 20, 30, 34, 36).

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Senior Manager (Civil) in a Central Public Sector Enterprise under the Ministry of Railway, challenged his fourth transfer in 22 months from Delhi to a location in Odisha. The applicant had been transferred earlier: on promotion from Gurugram to Shillong; then from Shillong to Thiruvananthapuram; then from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi; and finally from Delhi to Odisha. The applicant claimed these transfers were arbitrary and stigmatic, in violation of the company’s transfer policy, and that he was the sole caregiver for his 80-year-old father with 65% locomotor disability and his elderly mother. The respondents justified the transfers based on organizational needs and project requirements.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant held a transferable post and had no vested right to claim a posting of his choice. The transfers were based on organizational requirements and project exigencies, including a promotion, a project completion leading to surplus staff, and a specific Railway Board directive for inspection work. The applicant had accepted all previous transfers and claimed composite transfer grants. The court held that the impugned transfer was not arbitrary, malafide, or in violation of any statutory rule. The DoPT guidelines regarding caregivers were administrative instructions and did not confer a legally enforceable right against transfer.

Issues: The main issues were whether the impugned transfer order was in violation of the respondent's transfer policy; whether the frequent transfers were arbitrary, stigmatic, and malafide; and whether the applicant, as a sole caregiver to a parent with disabilities, was entitled to be exempted from transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer is an incident of service and that judicial interference is limited to cases of violation of statutory rules, malafide exercise of power, or lack of jurisdiction. An employee has no vested right to a particular place of posting. Administrative instructions and guidelines do not create legally enforceable rights. The respondents demonstrated that the transfers were necessitated by organizational needs and project requirements. Result : OA dismissed. MA dismissed. No order as to costs. (Paras 41-43)