Article #3

An administration is formed to perform a particular function, and it has the discretion to perform it. So, for all transfers, an administrative body is made that has the authority to transfer. Every sector has its administration appointed to undertake the transfer; they adhere to a procedure based on which the transfer takes place.

For example, in the public sector, the Department of Personnel and Training transfers a public servant under its transfer policy, which are Posting of Govt. Employees, Rotation Transfer Policy (CSS), Rotation Transfer Policy (CSSS), IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, As amended, Guidelines on Inter-Cadre Transfer of IAS Officers, Inter-Cadre Transfer of All India Service Officers to third cadre on the ground of marriage Clarification in Policy, Inter-Cadre Transfer of All India Service Officers to third cadre on the ground of marriage Clarification in Policy.

Another is the Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes has a comprehensive transfer policy that outlines the circumstances in which transfers are permitted, including employee eligibility requirements and tenure requirements.

The authorities have broad authority to transfer employees while considering administrative needs and public interest demands. Judges are typically prohibited from altering transfer orders, as doing so would be considered interference with the administration’s actions. In the case Ram Sharan vs The Deputy Inspector General, the court held that “the administrative structure served a legitimate purpose in maintaining police efficiency and did not systematically result in inequality or denial of equal opportunity.”

In another case, Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & Others (1995), the court held that it is established law that courts cannot interfere with a transfer that constitutes an incident of service unless it can be demonstrated that the transfer was clearly arbitrary, tainted by mala fides, or violated any proclaimed standard or principle that governs the transfer. Additionally, transferable post employees are not entitled to remain posted at a particular place.

Even though the administration has the discretion to manage its operations, judicial scrutiny of the transfer order generally does not occur unless there is evidence of malice or a lack of justification for the transfer. Court involvement is seen when transfers are made with mala fide intentions or without proper justification.

In the case Sanjay Upadhyay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (3 December, 2019), the court held that “It acknowledges that while transfers are typically not subject to judicial interference, frequent and arbitrary transfers without justification can indicate mala fide actions by authorities.”

Similarly, in the case R.C. Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and Ors, the court held that “The court noted that while transfers are typically within administrative discretion and not subject to interference unless proven malicious or arbitrary, the frequency and context of these transfers warranted scrutiny.”