IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Amit Behal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate, Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate, and Ms. Pawandeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-4), vide which the petitioner has been transferred from Nangali to Muradpura, District Amritsar.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is working as Patwari, was initially posted in District Patiala. He further submitted that the petitioner remained posted at different stations in District Amritsar from June, 2020 to July, 2025 and vide order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), he was transferred from Vaniaeke to Nangli, District Amritsar, where he joined. Thereafter, merely after four months from 28.07.2025, petitioner was again transferred from Nangali to Muradpur, Amritsar, vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-4). Learned Senior Counsel contended that the transfer of the petitioner from Nangali to Muradpur is in violation of the transfer policy dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-3), which was extended upto 15.09.2025 vide notification dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-2). He further contended that the petitioner has been transferred within four months without there being any circumstance as provided under the Transfer Policy. He further submits that the impugned transfer is a mid-term transfer, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP-28208 of 2025 – Ashish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 12.11.2025 – Law Finder Doc Id # 2823085

3. Per contra, learned State counsel defended the impugned transfer order of the petitioner by contending that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a vested or enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place. He further submitted that a complaint dated 19.11.2025 was made by the Gram Panchayat, Nangali, against the petitioner. It is contended that the transfer has been made in administrative exigency and does not suffer from any illegality, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi v.

The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2024 INSC 200 supported the impugned order by submitting that it is a general administrative order of transfer involving multiple Patwaries and Kanungos. Petitioner’s grievance, if any, lies only against the State authorities and not against respondent No.4. He further submitted that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record with their able assistance.

6. Law on the issue is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to be remained posted at a particular place of posting and the transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and another : 2008 (1) SCT 704, while considering the similar issue has held as under :-

“7. xx xx xx xx xx Apart from the said fact, the question which is required to be examined is whether such posting and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer purportedly made on administrative ground before the Tribunal. Guidelines ha