IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 Jarmanjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.02.2026 whereby he has been transferred. He is further seeking directions to respondent to decide his representation dated 23.02.2026.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 08.12.2016 in District Amritsar (Rural). He was transferred from time to time. He vide order dated 16.02.2026 was transferred from District Amritsar (Rural) to Ludhiana City and was relieved from Police Lines Amritsar (Rural) vide order dated 17.02.2026 to join at Ludhiana City. He preferred representation dated 23.02.2026 before Director General of Police, Punjab to cancel his transfer order but to no avail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has transferred the petitioner to settle political vendetta. The transfer has been made in violation of transfer policy dated 23.04.2014 wherein an employee cannot be transferred prior to completion of 2 years on one station. This Court in similar situations has stayed the order of transfer.

4. Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who on advance notice is present in Court on behalf of respondent-State, 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.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The 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.

7. 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.