IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 PALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. ...Petitioners Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate and Mr. Hargun Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of their transfer order dated 16.02.2026. They are further seeking directions to respondents to permit them to continue on their old/original place of posting.

2. The petitioners are currently serving in Punjab Police Force on different posts. They vide impugned order dated 16.02.2026 are transferred inter-range. As per petitioners, they are not transferred on account of administrative exigency. Their transfer is punitive and on account of political vendetta/influence. Wives of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are elected Sarpanches. They are active supporters of opposition Shiromani Akali Dal (for short ‘SAD’) . Photograph of petitioner No.4 surfaced on social media with SAD leader Bikramjit Singh Majithia.

3. Learned State counsel submits that impugned order has been passed by competent authority. No mala fide of respondents is involved. It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in transfer matters is very limited. It is the employer or higher authorities who have to decide posting of employees. The Court cannot determine place of posting of employees. The authorities, in the interest of administration as well as public interest has to transfer its employees. Transfer is an integral part of service. Except bald allegations, there is no concrete evidence disclosing that the petitioner has been transferred with mala fide intention or there is violation of policy. The respondent-authorities as per need of the hour have decided to transfer the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim right over present place of posting.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan and another, 2001 8 SCC 574 has held that no Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management.

5. Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held that a Government Servant once appointed at a particular place or position cannot continue for as long as he desires. Transfer is not only an incident inherent in terms of the appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service. Unless order of transfer is outcome of mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision, an order of transfer cannot be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. A challenge to an order should be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as under:-

“7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indicatio