Page No.# 1/23 GAHC010140952026 2026:GAU-AS:10141 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3638/2026 TAPAS ROY KUNGAR S/O ANIL CHANDRA ROY KUNGAR R/O - SHALBARI P.O BOXIRHAT DIST COOCHBIHAR, WEST BENGAL, PIN 736159 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2:THE DIG (ESTABLISHMENT) RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, MRS S A CHOUDHURY,CHONBEN Z Page No.# 2/23 YANTHAN,MS. S DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR B KAUSHIK(C.G.C.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents. 2. As consented to by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, the present Writ Petition was taken up for final consideration in the Motion stage and is being disposed of, by the present order. 3. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 25.06.2026, issued by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Maligaon, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Maligaon, transferring the Petitioner from Railway Protection Force (RPF)/Post/New Cooch Behar, Alipurduar Division to Railway Protection Force (RPF)/Post/New Jalpaiguri, Katihar Division, on completion of his tenure at New Cooch Behar. The Petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order dated 26.06.2026, issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway), Alipurduar Division, sparing the Petitioner from Page No.# 3/23 Alipurduar Division, in pursuance to the said order of his transfer and posting dated 25.06.2026. 4. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has projected that while he was posted as a Head-Constable at New Cooch Behar, under Alipurduar Division, a process of annual transfer exercise, being initiated in the Transfer Management Module (TMM), the Petitioner, as required by the Respondent authorities, had submitted his choice of places of posting. Thereafter, the transfers were processed in the Transfer Management Module (TMM) and orders of transfer of the Members of the Force, came to be so issued. However, therein, the name of the Petitioner did not find a mention. 4.1 Thereafter, the Petitioner was asked by the Respondent authorities, to submit fresh choice of places of posting. The Petitioner, accordingly, submitted his choice of places of posting, afresh. Subsequently, vide an order dated 25.06.2026, issued by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway), the Petitioner was transferred and posted from Alipurduar Division to Katihar Division and, on his such transfer, was posted at New Page No.# 4/23 Jalpaiguri. The Petitioner was also spared from Alipurduar Division, vide an order dated 26.06.2026, issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway), Alipurduar Division. 4.2 The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the transfer ordered in his case, had submitted a representation before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway), Maligaon, on 29.06.2026. The said representation, not being considered, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition. 4.3 Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the guidelines for transfer of the Members of the Force, as formulated under Directive No. 58 (Revised), invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, has submitted that in terms of the provisions of Clause D (xvii), the transfers have to be mandatorily completed, on or before 31st of March of the calendar year, in question. He submits that it was permissible to extend the said deadline, by further maximum period of 2 (Two) months, in the event of any administrative exigency arising, with the approval of the Director General, Railway Page No.# 5/23 Protection Force (RPF). 4.4 Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that in terms of the guidelines laid down, vide the Directive No. 58 (Revised), all transfers of the Members of the Force, is to be so processed in the Transfer Management Module (TMM) and no orders of transfer, on a manual processing of the same, is permissible to be so issued. Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a perusal of the order dated 25.06.2026, would go to reveal that the processing of the transfer of the Petitioner was so done manually, which he contends to be in clear violation of the guidelines, set-out in the provisions of the Directive No. 58. Accordingly, he submits that on the said count itself, the order of transfer of the Petitioner, would mandate an interference, along with the order sparing him from Alipurduar Division. 4.5 Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has then submitted that the Petitioner, on being asked by the Respondent authorities, had submitted his choice of place of posting. However, he submits that the choice of places of posting, submitted by the Petitioner, were not taken into consideration by Page No.# 6/23 the Respondent authorities, while issuing the order dated 25.06.2026. He submits that the guidelines framed under Directive No. 58 (Revised), mandate consideration of the choice places of posting, given by a Member of the Force. 4.6 In the above premises, Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the order dated 25.06.2026, transferring and posting the Petitioner from Alipurduar Division to Katihar Division, admittedly being in violation of the guidelines, laid down in Directive No. 58 (Revised), the said order of transfer of the Petitioner, would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, on instructions, has submitted that the Directive No. 58 (Revised) was issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Railway Board, in terms of the provisions of Rule 28 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987. He submits that such directives are mandated to be so issued by the Director General of the Force for enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Railway Protection Act, and the Rules of 1987, framed, thereunder. He submits that in Directive No. 58 (Revised), it has been provided that transfer of the enrolled Members of the Page No.# 7/23 Railway Protection Force (RPF) is to be so effected before 31st March of a calendar year. He submits that on ground of administrative exigency the Director General of the Force was authorized to extend the said period by a maximum period of 02 (two) months. In the present case, he submits that the Railway Board, had, vide a communication dated 24.03.2026, required all the Zonal Railways, Principal Chief Security Commissioners, Railway Protection Force (RPF), to initiate the process of transfer and complete the same, on or before 30.06.2026. He submits that the said direction, having come from the Railway Board, the same would have to be read into the provisions of the Directive No. 58(Revised) and the time frame prescribed, therein, for issuance of the transfer orders, in so far as the calendar year 2026, is concerned, stood automatically extended till 30.06.2026. He submits that in Directive No. 58 (Revised), it has been provided that the guidelines issued, thereunder, was subject to being modified and/or superseded by the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Railway Board, to meet administrative exigencies in the future. Accordingly, he submits that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the transfer effected, in respect of the Petitioner, vide order dated Page No.# 8/23 11.06.2026, being issued beyond the time frame, prescribed in the guidelines, formulated under Directive No. 58 (Revised), would not mandate acceptance from this Court. 5.1 Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, by referring to the contention, raised by the Petitioner that the transfer, in his case, having been processed manually, the same being in violation of the provisions of the Directive No. 58 (Revised) would mandate an interference, submits that in the provisions of Clause D (iii) of the said Directive No. 58 (Revised), it has been stipulated that manual transfers of enrolled Members of the Force, other than Inspectors, would be permissible to be made, with the prior approval of the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF). He submits that while the transfer of the Members of the Force were being so processed under the Transfer Management Module (TMM), on account of lack of suitable vacancies, 283 (Two-Hundred and Eighty Three) Nos. of the Members of the Force, who had already completed their tenure at their then places of posting, came to be left out from the transfer process. Thereafter, the Respondent authorities, on processing the matter, with regard to transfer of such left out Members, including Page No.# 9/23 the Petitioner, herein, approached the Railway Board for an approval to issue orders, after processing the matter manually. 5.2 Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, submits that on such approach being made, the Railway Board, vide communication dated 25.06.2026, granted approval to such request placed before it from the Force authorities. He submits that it is only in pursuance to the said approval, granted by the Railway Board, that the order dated 25.06.2026, came to be so issued. He submits that it is not disputed that the Petitioner had completed his tenure at New Cooch Behar, under Alipurduar Division and accordingly, was mandatorily required to be transferred from the said post, in terms of the guidelines under Directive No. 58 (Revised). Accordingly, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents submits that the transfer and posting of the Petitioner, being so effected, in compliance of the guidelines laid down, vide the Directive No. 58 (Revised), the same would not mandate an interference, only on the ground that such transfers, were processed manually. 5.3 With regard to the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the choice of places of posting, Page No.# 10/23 given by the Petitioner, were not considered by the Respondent authorities, while transferring and posting him, vide the order dated 25.06.2026, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, submits that the transfer and posting of a Member of the Force, is so processed to ensure that “right man is utilized for the right job” and in the provisions of Clause D (xx), the parameters required to be so considered, have been set-out. He submits that the choice places of posting, given by a Member of the Force before consideration of his case for such promotion, does not, given the manner of processing involved, ensure that a Member of the Force, shall be mandatorily posted against any one of his such choice of places of posting, and the posting of such Members of the Force, is subject to a further consideration, in terms of the provisions of Clause D (xx). 5.4 Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, further, on processing of the matter, submits that it was found that the Petitioner could not be accommodated against any of the choice place of posting, given by him. He submits that no legal or fundamental right of the Petitioner, came to be violated, on account of such transfer and posting, being effected in his case, Page No.# 11/23 requiring an interference with the same, from this Court. 5.5 In the above premises, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, submits that the order dated 25.06.2026, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is not disputed by the Petitioner that he had completed his tenure at New Cooch Behar, under Alipurduar Division, and was to be transferred out from the same Division, in the annual exercise carried out in the year 2026, in terms of the provisions of the Directive No. 58 (Revised). The Petitioner, accordingly, was, vide order dated 25.06.2026, transferred and posted from New Cooch Behar to New Jalpaiguri and he was, thereafter, spared from New Cooch Behar, vide an order dated 26.06.2026. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the transfer and posting, effected, in respect of the Petitioner, vide the order dated 25.06.2026, on the following grounds : (i) The transfer was so effected, in violation of the provisions of Directive No. 58, which lays down the guidelines for transfer and posting of Members of the Force. The first violation as alleged is Page No.# 12/23 that the transfer and posting as ordered in respect of the petitioner, vide order dated 25-06-2026, was so ordered beyond the timeframe prescribed in the said Directive No. 58(Revised), i.e. beyond 31st March of the calendar year in question and also beyond the further 2 (Two) months, so permissible. (ii) The second ground of challenge to the order dated 25.06.2026, is that the same was so issued after the matter was manually processed, which is projected to be in violation of the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised). (iii) The third ground of challenge is that the transfer and posting, ordered in case of the Petitioner, was so ordered without considering the choice of places of posting, given by him. 9. This Court, at the outset, would consider the first and the second grounds of challenge, urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, for assailing the order of transfer dated 25.06.2026. The first ground urged is to the effect that the order of transfer and posting, ordered, vide the order dated 25.06.2026, was so issued beyond the time frame prescribed in the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised), for effecting such transfers, in respect of the Members of the Force. The second ground is that the transfer and Page No.# 13/23 posting of the Petitioner was processed manually, which is projected to be impermissible. 10. The transfer and posting of the members of the force is governed by the provision of Rule 90 to 93 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time. The competent authority by invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the said Rules of 1987, issued Directive No. 58 laying down guidelines, in which transfer and posting of the members of the force would be so regulated. 11. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1987, empowers the Director General of the force to issue from time to time such directions in form of directives relating to enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Act and Rules, as he may think necessary and the superior officers and enrolled members of the force shall be governed by such directives in the performance and discharge of their duties. 12. As noticed hereinabove the guidelines as formulated under Directive No. 58 (revised) was so formulated by invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1987. The provisions of Sub- Clause- (XVII) of Clause- D of the said Directive No. 58, lays down Page No.# 14/23 that annual periodical transfer shall ideally be processed and completed on or before 31st March of every calendar year so that the officers and staff so affected could get sufficient time to plan for settling of their families and admission of their wards, as the case may be. It is further provided that on account of administrative exigencies, the Director General of force may extend the deadline by a maximum period of two months i.e. till the end of May of the calendar year. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer and posting ordered in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 25-06-2026, being so ordered beyond the timeframe as stipulated in the Directive No. 58 (Revised), the said order of transfer and posting in respect of the petitioner would be void ab initio. 13. This Court has carefully perused the various provisions made in the Directive No. 58 (revised) and finds that, therein, the Director General has also been authorized to withdraw, modify or supersede the guidelines to meet administrative exigencies in future. The respondents have projected that in view of the development of a Transfer Management Module, vide communication dated 10-02- 2006, all Zonal authorities were Page No.# 15/23 informed about the same and it was also required that prior to finalization of the said module, all requisite background data be prepared and all prescribed procedures be completed at the Zonal/ Divisional level strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in Directive No. 58 (revised). It was also informed that no transfer order be issued manually till instructions are conveyed from the Railway Board in this connection. The said module being completed, the Railway Board, vide communication dated 24-03- 2026, informed all concerned that the exercise with regard to tenure transfer/ promotion process shall be now completed by 30- 06-2026, including issuance of transfer orders, relieving of personnel etc. 14. The transfer of the Members of the Force, were, thereafter, ordered, vide an order dated 11.06.2026. However, the name of the Petitioner did not figure in the said order of transfer. Thereafter, the Petitioner was asked by the authorities to submit his choice of places of posting and the matter, on being processed, further, vide an order dated 25.06.2026, the Petitioner was transferred and posted from New Cooch Behar to New Jalpaiguri. The transfer and posting of the Petitioner, admittedly, was so done Page No.# 16/23 manually and not through the Transfer Management Module (TMM). 15. From the materials brought on record, it is seen that cases of Members of the Force, including the Petitioner, being found to have been left out in the exercise carried out through the Transfer Management Module (TMM) and they also having completed their respective tenures at the choice of places of posting, the authorities of the Force had approached the Railway Board, for an approval to process the cases of such Members, manually. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that such manual processing, after the introduction of the Transfer Management Module (TMM), is not permissible. This Court finds that in terms of the provisions of Clause D (iii), it is prescribed that transfer of the enrolled Members of the Force (except Inspectors), shall be caused and carried out through Transfer Management Module (TMM). It is further stipulated that there shall be no manual transfer for enrolled Members of the Force, other than Inspectors. However, it is qualified by further stipulating that manual processing of transfers would be permissible, with the prior Page No.# 17/23 approval of the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF). 17. From the materials brought on record, more particularly, the instructions furnished by Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC, appearing for the Respondents, this Court finds that the cases of the persons, left out from the list of enrolled Members of the Force, transferred and posted, through the Transfer Management Module (TMM), the Railway Board, vide a communication dated 25.06.2026, had granted the requisite approval for manual processing of their cases and it is only in pursuance to such approval being received, that the order dated 25.06.2026, came to be issued, after the transfer and postings involved were processed manually. 18. This Court, in view of the materials brought on record, is of the considered view, that the order dated 25.06.2026, although issued beyond the time frame, originally prescribed under the Directive No. 58 (Revised), the date for issuance of such orders, having been extended by the Railway Board till 30.06.2026, such extension is to be read into the provisions of the Directive No. 58 (Revised) and the order dated 25.06.2026, is now to be so deemed to have been issued, within the period extended by the Page No.# 18/23 Railway Board. Further, the Railway Board, having granted its approval for the manual processing of the transfer of the Petitioner, the order dated 25.06.2026, on a manual processing of the transfer and posting of the Petitioner, the same is found to have been done strictly, in terms of the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised). 19. The Railway Board, being competent to issue such directions, modifying the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised), the orders of transfer and posting, issued, in respect of the Petitioner, being so issued after receipt of due approvals from the Competent Authority, the transfer and posting, ordered in the case of the Petitioner, is now required to be complied by him, and the challenge presented to the order dated 25.06.2026, on the ground of violation of the guidelines, set-out under the Directive No. 58 (Revised), must necessarily fail. Accordingly, the challenge, as presented by the Petitioner to the order dated 25.06.2026, on the grounds that the same was so issued, in violation of the guidelines laid down in the Directive No. 58 (Revised), would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 20. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the third ground of challenge urged by the Learned Page No.# 19/23 Counsel for the Petitioner. 21. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the choice of places of posting, given by the Petitioner, was not so considered. Clause D (xxiii) mandates that the Members of the Force are at liberty to submit the choice of places of posting. However, while providing a liberty to the Members of the Force to give such choices, it has been stipulated in the said provisions that submission of choice places of posting, shall not confer any right on the Members of the Force to be posted in any particular Unit/Post/Outpost, chosen by him. 22. This Court further notices that vide the provisions of Clause D (xx), the parameters to be so reckoned, while considering the case of an enrolled Member of the Force, has been set-out. The transfer and posting, including the choice of places of posting, as given by an enrolled Member of the Force, is to be further processed, in terms of the parameters set-out in the Clause D (xx). Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that while transferring an enrolled Member of the Force, such transfer and posting cannot be limited only to the choice of places of posting, given by such enrolled Member of the Force, and given the manner Page No.# 20/23 in which such transfer and postings are processed, and the exercise, being in respect of a large number of the Members of the Force, it may result in the enrolled Members of the Force, not being posted against any of the choice places of posting given by them. 23. Accordingly, the order of transfer dated 25.06.2026, in the considered view of this Court, would also not mandate an interference, on the ground that the Petitioner was not transferred and posted against any of his choice place of posting. 24. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court holds that the transfer is an incident of service. No employee has a vested right to be posted at a place of his choice or to continue indefinitely in one station. The petitioner being an enrolled member of a disciplined force, by the very nature of his employment is liable to be transferred from one place of another in the interest of the force. This Court would not sit on appeal on the order(s) of transfer which are essentially matters within the administrative discretion of the competent authority. Judicial review, in such matters, is confined only to examining whether the order is vitiated by malafides or was so issued in contravention of any statutory rule or policy or has been passed by an authority not competent to do so. Page No.# 21/23 In the absence of any such infirmity, being projected and established, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the transfer order(s). The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the transfer ordered in his case by the impugned order dated 25-06-2026 has been so issued with an oblique motive, as a measure of victimization or was so issued in a colourable exercise of powers. In absence of any such foundation laid by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, the order dated 25-06-2026, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner, herein, cannot be said to have been vitiated. 25. This Court is of the further view that for the efficient functioning and discipline of the force of this nature, it is mandated that its members remain amenable to posting and transfer, as determined by the competent authority of the force. Individual preference for a particular posting must yield to the larger operational and public interest. This Court further finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated about infringement of any of his legal or fundamental right, on account of the transfer and posting, effected in his case, vide the impugned order dated 25-06-2026. Page No.# 22/23 Mere inconvenience or hardship, however, genuine at a personal level would not translate into a legal right enforceable through an approach to this Court. 26. In view of the reasons assigned, hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or malafide in issuance of the impugned order of transfer dated 25-06-2026, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the transfer and posting, ordered, in respect of the petitioner, vide the order dated 25-06-2026. 27. At this stage, Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Respondents be directed to extend his joining time. This Court finds that the Petitioner was spared for joining against his transferred place of posting, vide an order dated 26.06.2026. The Petitioner had not joined at his transferred place of posting and had preferred a representation, against order of his transfer, on 29.06.2026, which has also not been disposed of by the Respondent authorities. 28. In view of the above situation emanating in the matter, the Petitioner is granted a liberty to submit a representation before the competent authority, praying for an extension of his joining Page No.# 23/23 time. Such application be filed within 10 (Ten) days from today. In the event of filing of such application, the same be sympathetically considered by the competent authority and the Petitioner be permitted to join at his transferred place of posting. 29. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant