2025:JHHC:34065-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5959 of 2025 Vinay Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Badrinath Ram, R/o- Shri Sadan Devi Mandap Road, Behind Arvindo Ashram, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834005. ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, P.O. + P.S.- Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011; 2. The Director (HR), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110001; 3. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ( BSNL), O/o the CGM, Jharkhand Telecom Circle, ARTTC Building, Room No.: C-202, Near Jumar River, P.O.- Newri Vikash, P.S.- Sadar, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand-835217; … ….Respondent s --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mayank Mridul, Advocate ------ 02 /Dated: 14.11.2025 1. Heard. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Application by the Tribunal questioning the transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The only ground on which the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal is that he is alone care giver to his elder disabled brother and further more that his son also is suffering from ailment. However, both these contentions have not found favour with the Tribunal as is evident from para 29-31 of the judgment which reads thus: 2025:JHHC:34065-DB 29. The applicant's mother, Smt. Bina Rani Gupta, is a government family pensioner, drawing pension after demise of her husband, Lt. Shri Badri Nath Ram, who also served in the same department. Mother of the applicant vide her representation dated 08.03.2022, has formally requested advance approval of family pension for life for her permanently disabled son, Shri Rajesh Kumar and also requested his inclusion in the PPO. 30. In the said representation dated 08.03.2022, mother of applicant nominated her younger son, Shri Subham Arya, as the caretaker who should receive and manage pension benefits on behalf of Shri Rakesh Kumar in the event of her death. Thus, the responsibility of caregiver of Shri Rajesh Kumar rest with her mother and in the event of her death with Shri Subham Arya. 31. It is understood that applicant has procured a certificate enrolment dated 29.06.2024 for caregiver to his disabled elder brother after his transfer/posting order dated 17.05.2024 to enable him to take shelter of the government policy on the subject of transfer of caregiver of disabled person. This fact is substantiated by the fact of details of family dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-R/4) furnished by the applicant himself to the respondent authorities wherein the name of his elder brother (Shri Rajesh Kumar) and his mother Smt. Bina Rani Gupta are not found place. Further the applicant has not 2025:JHHC:34065-DB produced any valid certificate in support of his contentions of ailments of his son. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse. However, we find no merit in this contention given the fact that the Tribunal has categorically found and it has otherwise not been disputed that the petitioner has a younger brother, namely, Subham Arya, who, in fact, has been nominated by the mother of the petitioner as a caretaker who should receive and manage the pension benefits on behalf of the elder brother of the petitioner i.e. Rajesh Kumar. 4. Moreover, it is more than settled that it is for the employee to choose between career prospects and family life especially when the job is of a transferable nature. 5. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is Central government employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other anywhere within the Country. 6. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in 2025:JHHC:34065-DB the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide. The courts and tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to "proper place". It is for the administration to take appropriate decision. 7. Even the administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redressal but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. Even if, the order of transfer is made in transgression of administrative guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as it does not confer any legally enforceable rights unless the same is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. 8. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide 2025:JHHC:34065-DB and colourable exercise of power. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, such as on the basis of complaints. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative action should be just and fair. An order of transfer is to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution otherwise the same will be treated as arbitrary. 9. Judicial review of the order of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant consideration. Even when the order of transfer which otherwise appears to be innocuous on its face is passed on extraneous consideration then the Court is competent to go into the matter to find out the real foundation of transfer. The Court is competent to ascertain whether the order of transfer passed is bonafide or as a measure of punishment. 10. The law regarding interference by Court in transfer/posting of an employee, as observed above, is well settled and came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131; Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas. (1993) 4 SCC 357; Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532; State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav 2025:JHHC:34065-DB and others. (1995) 3 SCC 270; Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214; Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash. (2001) 8 SCC 574; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs, State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another. (2004) 4 SCC 245; State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405; State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299, Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592; Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304; Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178; and State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another (2010) 13 SCC 306 and the conclusion may be summarised as under:- i. Transfer is a condition of service. ii. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee. iii. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time. 2025:JHHC:34065-DB iv. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required. v. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure. vi. There is a very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory Rules or malafides are established. vii. In case of malafides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence. viii. The person against whom allegations of malafide is made should be impleaded as a party by name. ix. Transfer policy or guidelines issued by the State or employer does not have any statutory force as it merely provides for guidelines for the understanding of the Department personnel. x. The Court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee, his family members and 2025:JHHC:34065-DB children, as consideration of these views fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. xi. If the transfer order is made in mid-academic session of the children of the employee, the Court/ Tribunal cannot interfere. It is for the employer to consider such a personal grievance. xii. The personal inconvenience and hardship of an employee are considerations which lie solely within the purview of the Employer and it is always open to the aggrieved party to make a representation to his Employer...... 11. Further it is not in dispute that in the instant case it is not a transfer simpliciter but the petitioner, as a matter of fact, has been promoted and thereafter transferred. Obviously in such circumstances when the petitioner on transfer was bound to be transferred he can have no grievance especially when the place he is being transferred i.e. Kolkata, the medical facilities available for the petitioner and his family and more particularly his elder brother and his son are far better. 12. As Regards the ailment of the son, the Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner in this regard has failed to produce any valid certificate in support of his contention. Here also, save and except a medical report issued by the Christian Medical College, Vellore no other certificate of government hospital has been appended by the petitioner regarding the proof of ailment of his son. 2025:JHHC:34065-DB 13. Lastly and more importantly, the scope of judicial review in such matter is extremely limited and having perused the order passed by the Tribunal, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 14. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) NAFR 14/11/2025 Sharda/MM Cp.02