130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 28.11.2025 GURJEET KAUR .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma , Advocate Ms. Geetanjali,Advocate and Ms. Mainee, Advocate for the petitioner.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer:

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) qua the petitioner vide which the petitioner has been transferred from RTA Office Yamunanagar to RTA Office Karnal within a period of 10 months contrary to the Policy dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) and without the approval of the Chief Minister, Haryana.

The conspectus of Facts:

2. The petitioner is serving as a Motor Vehicle Officer (Enforcement) and was posted at the Office of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Yamunanagar, upon her promotion w.e.f. 31.01.2025. The Government of Haryana issued a Transfer Policy dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), laying down administrative guidelines for transfers. Vide order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P- 4), the petitioner was transferred from RTA Yamunanagar to RTA Karnal. The transfer was effected within ten months of her posting.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner:

4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned transfer order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) has been issued within ten months of the petitioner’s posting, in violation of the Government of Haryana Transfer Policy which discourages mid-term transfers except for compelling administrative reasons as no such reason is mentioned in the order.

5. It is argued that the petitioner is a Class-B officer, and as per the policy, any mid-term transfer or transfer on administrative exigency requires prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Instead, the transfer has been approved only by the Transport Minister, rendering the order without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

6. Counsel contends that the transfer order is absolutely non-speaking, assigning no reason whatsoever. As per the policy and principles of administrative fairness, reasons must be recorded when deviating from normal tenure.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred abruptly, without providing her the joining time, which reflects arbitrariness and mala fide intent. The haste in issuing and implementing the order shows that it is punitive and intended to harass her.

8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s 75-year-old ailing mother-in-law requires constant care and there is no other female member in the family. Her children are also studying locally. The respondents failed to consider these genuine hardships, though the policy obligates the competent authority to factor in humanitarian considerations.

9. Counsel argues that the respondents have not demonstrated any public interest or administrative exigency requiring the petitioner’s removal from her post. In the absence of such justification, the transfer cannot be sustained.

10. Heard counsel for both parties.

Analysis

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s challenge to the transfer order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-4). The legal position governing transfers is well settled. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that transfer is a normal incidence of service and the courts must not interfere unless (i) malafides, (ii) violation of statutory rules, or (iii) incompetence of the authority is established.

12. The petitioner places substantial reliance on the Haryana Transfer Policy dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1). However, it is well-established that departmental transfer policies are only guiding instructions and do not create any legally enforceable rights. Even if the policy contemplates obtaining