SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15786

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Budi Habung, J
SOMANATH MAHARANA – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS – Respondent
WP(C)/333/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Somanath Maharana
For the Respondents: B. Chakraborty

Transfer is an incident of service, and armed forces personnel have no vested right to a specific posting. While courts rarely interfere in such transfers, premature transfers without assigned reasons may entitle the employee to a sympathetic consideration for future preferred postings.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer and Posting - Vested Right - Transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. (Para 10)

(B) Armed Forces - Judicial Interference - The scope of interference by courts in transfer orders of members of armed forces is limited and narrow; courts should be extremely slow to interfere unless an exceptionally strong case is made. (Para 4)

(C) Administrative Requirements - Premature Transfer - While normal tenure should generally be respected, officers may be transferred before completion of tenure due to administrative or operational requirements of the force. (Para 4, 10)

Issues: Whether the premature transfer of a CRPF officer before completion of normal tenure without assigning reasons is legally sustainable.

Table of Content
1. challenge to premature transfer order based on violation of prescribed normal tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. administrative and operational requirements of armed forces override individual posting preferences. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. transfer is an incident of service with no vested right to a specific location. (Para 9 , 10)
4. non-interference in transfer orders when the officer has already joined and no immediate prejudice is caused. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. grant of limited relief via representation for preferred posting when transfer lacked assigned reasons. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the Judgment? :No

Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

Heard Mr. Somanath Maharana, petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner-in-person, who was serving as Commandant and posted in 142 BN CRPF, Golaghat, Assam, has challenged the Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF (respondent No. 2), by which he was transferred and posted to South Zone situated at Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad (T.S.) 500005 before completion of his normal tenure of 3 (three) years.

3. The petitioner contended that as per Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014, the normal tenure from Assistant Commandant to DIG would be 3 (three) years. However, the petitioner, having joined the present place of posting at Golaghat, Assam on 28.03.2023, had not completed the said tenure of 3 (three) years. The petitioner submits that the impugned Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 has been issued before completion of 3 (three) years tenure and without assigning any reason; as such, it has been issued in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned CGC for the respondents submits that Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014 has been superseded by subsequent Standing Order No. 5/22 dated 27.09.2022, whereby, at Para 3 (c), it provides that “if it is found that an officer needs to be transferred before completion of normal tenure due to administrative or operational requirements, his case will be forwarded to the Directorate with reasons,” and Para No. 5(b) of the said Standing Order stipulates that, “As CRPF is a Central Armed Police Force of the Government of India constituted under a Special Act and is tasked with important operational duties regarding maintenance of the security of the nation, therefore, there are certain operational and administrative requirements of the Force. In view of such requirements, any officer may be posted to any Unit or office at any point of time”. The respondent further contends that it does not create any right for any officer for posting to a particular place or for a particular tenure, as mentioned in Para 5(a), and the transfer of the petitioner has been issued under the provisions of Para Nos. 3 (c) and 5(b) of Standing Order 5/22 on administrative as well as operational requirements of the force. Further, it is submitted that no officer has any vested right to remain posted at a particular place and transfer can be effected at any time depending upon administrative requirements. In support of his submission, the learned CGC place reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of J. K. Bansal (Major General) vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227, wherein, in paragraph-12 of the said judgment it has been held that

“It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top