3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4359 OF 2026 1. Ganesh s/o Gamaji Chunchuwar, Aged about 48 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o Tukum, Chandrapur, Presently R/o. Kamgar Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur. .... PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (MSEDCL), office at Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051, through its Managing Director. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (MSEDCL), office at Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051, through its Assistant General Manager (HR-NTE). 3. Shri Prashant Latari Madavi, Aged major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Gondia C/o. MSDCL, Gondia Circle Gondia. .... RESPONDENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shantanu Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S. V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Akshay Naik, Senior Advocate a/b Shri. D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 09.09.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 22.09.2026 JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] 2026:BHC-NAG:12640-DB 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (2) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned transfer order dated 22.05.2026, whereby he has been transferred from Nagpur Zone to Nashik Zone. The petitioner has joined service with the respondent No.1 as a Junior Law Officer, which was notified as a Class – II post. In the year 2008, he got married and his wife was also serving in Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur as an Extension Officer. The petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Law Officer and was posted at Bhandup, Mumbai, but due to his personal reason, he denied to accept the promotion, thereafter, he was transferred to Gadchiroli and he was looking after his family from Gadchiroli. He worked at Gadchiroli for a period of 6 years. The petitioner was due for transfer and similarly his wife, who was in the employment of Semi-Government i.e. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. In view of the Government Circular and the policy of the respondent No.1 that the transfer of the employee should be at such a place where husband and wife can live together. Pursuant to such policy, the petitioner has applied for the request transfer at Chandrapur. His request was considered and he was transferred on 04.08.2018 at Chandrapur. Since then he was serving at Chandrapur. Thereafter, the petitioner was due in the year 2014 for its promotion. However, he was considered for the promotion in 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (3) the year 2022 and promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer and was posted at the Corporate Office, Mumbai. Again, he was transferred to Chandrapur and thereafter from Chandrapur to Nagpur. Since 21.06.2023, he was working at Nagpur. Now, suddenly, though he was not due for transfer on 22.05.2026, he was transferred to the Nashik Zone and respondent No.3 was posted at his place. Being aggrieved with the same, he approached this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Ghate for the petitioner. He submitted that the administrative circular was issued by the respondent No.1 and transfer policy is set out for the transfer to be effected in the year 2026. Contrary to the said circular, the petitioner was transferred out of the Zone. The action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that perusal of the administrative circular would reveal that the guidelines about effecting transfer are laid down which are mandatory. As per the guidelines, if the transfer is to be effected beyond Zone, then an employee has to complete 15 years of service. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed three years of service in Nagpur Zone and, therefore, there is a violation of the mandatory administrative circular. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, strongly opposed the said contention and 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (4) submitted that the transfer was effected on an administrative ground. He submitted that transfer order is to meet the administrative exigencies and is in consonance with the respondents transfer policy reflected in the administrative Circular No.514 dated 10.08.2015 and Circular No.692 dated 09.04.2025 and in accordance with the service conditions, administrative requirements and explicit organizational policies of the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner worked as a Junior Law Officer at Chandrapur from 31.05.2007 to 13.05.2012, again at Chandrapur from 14.05.2012 to 03.08.2018 and in the similar Zone from 04.08.2018 to 29.09.2022. Thus, approximately 15 years and 2 months petitioner worked in Chandrapur Zone. Whereas, he worked as an Assistant Law Officer in Corporate Office, Mumbai only for 8 months and as Assistant Law Officer in Nagpur Rural Circle for 2 Years and 10 months. It was the petitioner who has denied his promotion and as per the Regulation 12(a) of the MSEDCL Employees Seniority Regulations, 2005, an employee who forgoes a promotion on his own accord automatically loses his seniority and becomes junior to those promoted ahead of them and stands debarred from promotional consideration for a period of two years. Thus, debarment of the petitioner upon his refusal to get promoted was in view of standard legal application of statutory service regulations, and not an administrative or disciplinary punishment. In the year 2022 i.e. on 06.09.2022, he was promoted and posted 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (5) at the Corporate Office. During the General Transfers of 2023, the petitioner requested for transfer which was favourably considered, in view of the reasons stated by him. Thus, he served at Mumbai for only 7 months. Thus, he submitted that on most of the occasions the request of the present petitioner was considered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He submitted that transfer of petitioner from Nagpur to Nashik Zone was necessitated purely on account of administrative reasons. The respondent No.3 has been repeatedly submitting request transfer application from the year 2021 for Nagpur Rural Circle, however, due to non vacancy of the post of at Nagpur his request was not considered. Taking into consideration the petitioner’s request in the year 2023, he was transferred to Nagpur so that he could attend his ailing mother who was being treated. He further submitted that another employee who was serving at Nashik namely Shri R. V. Bommi, who was working on the post of Assistant Law Officer has submitted that his request for transfer from the Nashik Zone to the Pune Zone was considered and, therefore, his post was vacant. There was more need in Pune Zone as litigations were more than thousand. Thus, there was an administrative workload. Recognizing and considering the operational necessity, Shri Bommi’s request transfer was approved and he has been transferred to Pune. This resulted in vacancy at Nashik Zone and the said vacancy was vacant in Nashik Zone, therefore, considering Nashik’s operational scale and leaving 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (6) this position vacant poses significant administrative risk and therefore, on the administrative ground, the petitioner was transferred. Thus, he submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the transfer. He submitted that moreover, there is no pleading of malafideness. The transfer being detrimental to employee holding transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Pubi Lombi vs State of Arunachal Pradesh and others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 292. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Naik for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 is in no way concerned with the transfer of the petitioner. He submitted that on the contrary, he was appointed as Junior Law Officer in the year 2009 and posted at Bhandara. Thereafter, he promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer in the year 2014 and posted at Corporate Office, Mumbai. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gondia in the year 2016. The respondent No.3 has served in Gondia District, which is declared as Naxalite area. Thus, the petitioner has served till 22.05.2026 i.e. 10 years at Gondia and as per Government Resolution, if an employee served at Naxalite area for a particular period, then he is entitled for transfer of his choice. Thus, he submitted that on the request of the respondent No.3, as his unmarried sister was suffering from sickle-cell as well as his father has suffered from 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (7) heart disease and undergone open heart bypass surgery and also suffering from various ailments due to old age, the request of respondent No.3 was considered and thereby he was transferred, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Before entering into the aspect of the transfer of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the various pronouncement on the issue of the transfers. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [MANU/SC/0147/1991], Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa & Others [MANU/SC/1997/1995], Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas [MANU/SC/0258/1993], Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas [MANU/SC/0370/1993] and State of U.P. and others Vs. Gobardhan Lal [MANU/SC/0281/2004], wherein the principles are reiterated. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “The issue of transfer of employees, particularly of government servants, often attracts attention of Courts and Tribunals and has contributed to a large section of jurisprudence on service law. Expectation of an employee to retain his/her posting, or to have a desired posting, contributes to large volume of litigation on issues of transfer and postings. Courts and Tribunals in India are therefore flooded with petitions filed by employees, who feel wronged by transfers. The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and that the appointing authority has wide 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (8) discretion in the matter of deciding posting of employees. If a Government servant is appointed on a transferable post, it is for the Government to decide where he/she is to be transferred and posted and Courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the transferring authority. Transfers are deemed to have been effected in public interest and towards efficiency of public administration. Since transfer is an incident of service, an order of transfer cannot be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafides or against the professed norms. The scope of judicial review in challenge to transfer orders lies in extremely narrow compass. There is no dearth of decisions of the Supreme Court where the above principles are repeatedly enunciated.” 7. The learned counsel of the petitioner without assailing the transfer policy questioned the transfer of the petitioner, its legality and validity on the ground that it is not within the purview of the said policy. As far as the factual aspect that the petitioner served maximum in Chandrapur region is undisputed. His service record shows that he has served in Chandrapur region for about 15 years and 2 months. Undisputedly, once he has denied the promotion and, therefore, in view of the regulations i.e. the statutory service regulations, he was debarred from promotional considerations for a period of 2 years. Though he has made a 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (9) grievance in the present petition that he was not considered for promotion till 2021, but, admittedly, he has not challenged the aspect that he was not considered for the promotion. Thus, it is an admitted position that in view of the Regulation 12(a) of the MSEDCL Employees Seniority Regulations, 2005, an employee who forgoes a promotion on his own accord automatically loses his seniority and becomes junior to those promoted ahead of them and stands debarred from promotional consideration for a period of two years. Admittedly, petitioner has not claimed any malafideness on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 behind his transfer. His only contention is that as per the transfer policy he has to serve in Nagpur region for 15 years, but without adhering to the said guidelines enumerated in the transfer policy of respondent No.1, he was transferred and, therefore, the said transfer is arbitrary and illegal. The relevant portion of transfer policy is reproduced as under: 2- cnY;kackcrph ekxZn’kZd rRos Hkkx &1% loZlk/kkj.k cnY;k izR;sd o”kkZP;k ,fizy@es efgU;kr dsY;k tk.kkÚ;k loZlk/kkj.k cnY;kkackcr [kkyhy ekxZn’kZd rRokapk voyac dj.;kr ;sbZy- ¼d½ izR;sd inkdfjrk loZlk/kkj.ki.ks inko/kh gk 3 o”kkZpk vlsy- ek=] vR;ar vioknkRed ifjfLFkrhr lnjpk dkyko/kh gk 5 o”kkZai;Zr ok<fo.;kps vf/kdkj l{ke izkf/kdkÚ;kauk jkgrhy- 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (10) ¼[k½ ,dkp eq[;ky;kr @ ifjeaMGkr @eaMGkr @ foHkkxkr @ mifoHkkxkr T;k deky dkyko/kh lkBh lyx dk;Zjr jkgrk ;sbZy rks laoxZfugk; dkyko/kh [kkyhyizek.ks fuf’pr dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- i½ jkT;Lrjh; T;s”Brse/khy vf/kdkjh o deZpkjh ;kapsdfjrk% v-dz- laoxZ 3 o”kZ 6 o”kZ 12 o”kZ 15 o”kZ 1 dk;Zdkjh vfHk;ark rRle o R;kojhy vf/kdkjh IkfjeaMGkckgsj --- --- --- 2 osruxV 1 e/khy vU; vf/kdkjh o osruxV 2 e/khy vf/kdkjh eq[;ky;kr cny foHkkxkckgsj ek= eaMGkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny EakMGkckgsj ek= ifjeaMGk varxZr eq[;ky;kr cny IkfjeaMGkckgsj 3 osruxV 3 ¼jkT;Lrjhy lsok T;ss”Brk½ eq[;ky;kr cny 9 o”kkZuarj foHkkxkckgsj ek= eaMGkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny EkaMGkckgsj eq[;ky;kr cny --- ii½ eaMG o foHkkxLrjh; T;s”Brse/khy deZpkjh ;kapsdfjrk% v-dz- laoxZ 3 o”kZ 6 o”kZ 15 o”kZ 24 o”kZ 4 osruxV 3 ¼eaMGLrjh; lsok T;ss”Brk½ izR;sd 3 o”kkZuarj 15 o”kkZi;Zr foHkkxkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny izR;sd 3 o”kkZuarj 15 o”kkZi;Zar foHkkxkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny foHkkxkckgsj ek= eaMGkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny foHkkxkckgsj ek= eaMGkarxZr eq[;ky;kr cny 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (11) 5 osruxV 4 izR;sd 3 o”kkZuarj eq[;ky;kr cny 6 o”kkZuarj ‘kk[kk dk;kZy;kr cny o eq[;ky;kr cny mi foHkkxkckgsj eq[;ky;kr cny mi foHkkxkckgsj eq[;ky;kr cny fVi % 1½ ,dkp fBdk.kh daiuhph ,dkis{kk tkLr dk;kZy;s dk;kZfUor vlrhy mnk% ifjeaMG] eaMG] foHkkx ¼laolq] LFkkiR;] pkp.kh] izf’k{k.k] Hkjkjh iFkd dk;kZy;s bR;knh½ v’kk dk;kZy;kaP;kckcrhr eq[;ky; gs ,dp let.;kr ;sbZy o eq[;ky;kr cny djrsosGh ;k dk;kZy;kaO;frfjDr vU; fBdk.kh cnyh dj.;kr ;koh- 2½ cnyh fo”k;d /kksj.k iw.kZ daiuhe/;s ,dkdh vl.kkÚ;k inkl ykxw gks.kkj ukgh- 3½ osruxV & 1 e/khy deZpkÚ;kaph eatwj in la[;k 50 is{kk deh vlsy vkf.k@ fdaok rs in ifjeaMGkarxZr ,dkdh vlsy rlsp eaMG dk;kZy;] rRle fdaok fuEu Lrjkojhy dk;kZy;kr inLFkkiuk gksr ulsy rj 6 o”kkZauh ifjeaMGkckgsj cnyhl ik= Bjrhy- 4½ osruxV & 1 e/khy T;k deZpkÚ;kaph inLFkkiuk QDr eaMG fdaok R;kojhy dk;kZy;kae/;s gksrs o v’kk inkaph eatwj in la[;k 50 is{kk deh vlsy vkf.k @ fdaok ifjeaMGkarxZr ,dkis{kk tkLr ins eatwj vlrhy rj 6 o”kkZauh eq[;ky;kr cny o 12 o”kkZauh ifjeaMGkckgsj cnyhl ik= Bjrhy- 5½ osruxV & 2 e/khy deZpkÚ;kaph eatwj in la[;k 50 is{kk deh vlsy vkf.k @ fdaok rs in ifjeaMGkarxZr ,dkdh in vlsy rlsp eaMG dk;kZy;] rRle fdaok fuEu Lrjkojhy dk;kZy;kr inLFkkiuk gksr ulsy rj 6 o”kkZauh ifjeaMGkckgsj cnyhl ik= Bjrhy- 6½ osruxV & 2 e/khy T;k deZpkÚ;kaph inLFkkiuk QDr eaMG fdaok R;kojhy dk;kZy;kae/;s gksrs o v’kk inkaph eatwj in la[;k 50 is{kk deh vlsy vkf.k @ fdaok ifjeaMGkarxZr ,dkis{kk tkLr 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (12) ins eatwj vlrhy rj 6 o”kkZauh eq[;ky;kr cny o 12 o”kkZauh ifjeaMGkckgsj cnyhl ik= Bjrhy- mijksDr rDR;kr ¼ifjPNsn 2 Hkkx&1 [kkyhy ¼[k½½ lkaf/kd dk;kZy;kr dk;Zjr vlysY;k deZpkÚ;kaP;k lanHkkZr lkaf/kd dk;kZy; gs ,d Lora= ifjeaMG eku.;kr ;sbZy o lkaf/kd dk;kZy;krhy fofo/k foHkkxkarxZr o lkaf/kd dk;kZy;kckgsj cnyh djrkauk mijksDr ifjPNsn 2 Hkkx & 1 [kkyhy ¼[k½ e/;s uewn dj.;kr vkysyk dk;Zdky fopkjkr ?ks.;kr ;sbZy- Hkkx & 2 % fouarh cnY;k lkaf/kd @ ifjeaMG @ eaMG vkf.k foHkkxh; dk;kZy;kr cnyhph fouarh dj.kkjs fouarh vtZ eksB;k la[;sus izkIr gksrkr- R;ke/;s ys[kh fouarh vtZ] izR;{k HksV @ eqyk[kr ?ksÅu fouarh dj.kkjs] rlsp ckg; ek/;ekaekQZr izkIr >kysys vtZ o f’kQkj’kh vlrkr- ,dw.kp cnyh izfdz;sr ikjn’kZdrk ;koh] rlsp ckg; ek/;ekaP;k ncko @ gLr{ksikl izksRlkgu feGw u;s ;klkBh vf/kdkjh o deZpkjh ;kaP;k fouarhuqlkj cnyh djrkuk [kkyhy ekxZn’kZd rRos vuqlj.;kr ;kohr- ¼d½ loZ deZpkÚ;kauh fouarh cnyhdfjrk ß,EIykWbZ iksVZyÞ ¼Employee Portal½ }kjs njo”khZ uO;kus vtZ lknj dj.ks vko’;d jkghy- lax.kdh; iz.kkyh O;frjhDr ys[kh Lo:ikrhy fouarh vtZ cnyhdfjrk fopkjkr ?ksrys tk.kkj ukghr- fouarh cnyh ckcrph izfdz;k lax.kfd; iz.kkyh ¼Transfer Module½ ekQZr dj.;kr ;sbZy- rlsp loZ cnyh vkns’k gs dsoG SAP iz.kkyhe/kwup fuxZfer dj.;kr ;srhy- i½ lax.kd iz.kkyh ekQZr fouarah cnyh vtZ lknj dj.;klkBh izR;sd vf/kdkjh o deZpkÚ;kdMs nksu fodYi miyC/k vlrhy Eg.ktsp ßcnyh iklwu lwVÞ vkf.k ßfouarh cnyhÞ- deZpkjh ;k nksu fodYikaiSdh dsoG ,dp fodYi fuoMw ‘kdrks- ii½ ßfouarh cnyhÞ ;k fodYiklkBh deZpkÚ;kdMs lgk Ik;kZ; miyC/k vlrhy] R;kiSdh rhu Ik;kZ; ßfouarh cnyhps fBdk.k & 1Þ lkBh o rhu Ik;kZ; ßfouarh cnyhps fBdk.k & 2Þ lkBh miyC/k vlrhy- ¼mnk% ifjeaMGkckgsj fdaok ifjeaMGkarxZr eaMGkckgsj fdaok 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (13) eaMGkarxZr foHkkxkckgsj fdaok foHkkxkarxZr bR;knh½ deZpkÚ;kus ;k nksu izdkjP;k cnyhP;k fBdk.kkaiSdh fdeku ,dk fBdk.kklkBh ,d Ik;kZ; fuoM.ks vko’;d vkgs- iii½ izR;sd deZpkÚ;kus vtkZe/;s fnysY;k nLr,sotkaP;k lwphuqlkj lacaf/kr vko’;d o ;ksX; rh dkxni=s lknj ¼Upload½ dj.ks vfuok;Z vkgs- lnj dkxni=s fouarh dsysY;k dkj.kkal iq”Vh dj.kkjh vlkohr- iv½ cnyh vtkZr uewn dsysyk xV&3 pk Ik;kZ;] dsoG ts deZpkjh vfr nqxZe Hkkxke/;s fdaok Hkjkjh iFkdke/;s dk;Zjr vkgsr] QDr v’kkp deZpkÚ;kauk miyC/k dj.;kr vkyk vlwu] gk Ik;kZ; brj deZpkÚ;kalkBh miyC/k dj.kkj ukgh- v½ fouarh cnyh vtZ lknj dj.;kph vafre rkjh[k njo”khZ 31 ekpZ vlwu ;k rkj[ksuarj fouarh vtZ lknj djrk ;s.kkj ukghr- rlsp] lknj dsysyk fouarh cnyh vtZ jí dj.;kph vafre rkjh[k njo”khZ 15 ,fizy vlsy o dks.kR;kgh deZpkÚ;kl ;k rkj[ksuarj vtZ jí djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- lax.kd iz.kkyhe/;s fouarh cnyh vtZ lknj djko;kph dk;Zi/nrh 15 ,fizy uarj iw.kZi.ks can dj.;kr ;sbZy- vi½ deZpkÚ;kus fouarh cnyh vtkZe/;s lknj dsysY;k fodYikuqlkj R;kph cnyh >kY;kl dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro >kysyh cnyh jí @ lq/kkjhr dj.;kr ;s.kkj ukgh o lacaf/kr deZpkÚ;kl cnyhP;k fBdk.kh :tw Ogkos ykxsy- vii½ deZpkÚ;kus fouarh cnyh vtZ lknj dsY;kuarj lacaf/kr ekuo lalk/ku foHkkxkrhy vf/kdkÚ;kus vtkZe/khy lsok ri’khy] fouarh cnyh@ cnyhlkBh lwV ;k dkj.kkaP;k vuq”kaxkus lknj dsysys nLr,sot@ dkxni=s] oS|dh; izek.ki=s bR;knh vtkZlkscr lknj dsyh vkgsr fdaok ukgh ;kph [kkrjtek d:u R;kaph dkVsdksji.ks rikl.kh djkoh- lnj rikl.khckcrph dk;Zokgh vtZ izkIr >kY;kiklwu 7 fnolkaP;k vkr Ikw.kZ djkoh- viii½ lacaf/kr rikl.kh vf/kdkjh ;kauk deZpkÚ;kaus vtkZe/;s pqdhph ekfgrh HkjY;kps vk<Gwu vkY;kl ;ksX; R;k dkj.kfeekalslg lnj vtZ ukdkj.;kr ;sbZy- rjhgh lacaf/kr deZpkjh fouarh cnyhdjhrk bPNqd 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (14) vlY;kl vtZ ukdkjysY;k fnukadkiklwu 07 fnolkaP;k vkr cnyhpk vtZ iqu%’p lknj d: ‘kdsy- ;k 07 fnolkuarj deZpkÚ;kl fouarh cnyh vtZ lknj djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- 8. The Apex Court time and again has laid down that the policy of transfer has no statutory force and is meant to only for guiding the Executive in the decision making process for transfer of employees/officers working on transferable posts. These are mere guiding principles for smooth functioning of the administration so that the act of transfer leads to minimum heart burning for the transferred employees/officers. Thus, the violation of transfer policy does not give a justifiable right to the employee/officer to challenge in the court of law. As such we need not go into the merits of the challenge laid by the petitioner to the order of transfer since all the grounds are essentially founded upon the ground of violation of transfer policy. The law is settled that an order of transfer passed in violation of any clause of transfer policy does not give rise to justifiable cause to the transferred employee. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992) 1 SCC 306, Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and State of M.P. Vs. S. S. Kourav & others (1995) 3 SCC 270 and High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in R. S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR [2007] M.P. 1329, has observed as under: 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (15) In Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra) "5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of all-India service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees." 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (16) In S. L. Abbas (supra) "6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order,-- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force." In S. S. Kourav (supra) "4. It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had already worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We cannot appreciate these grounds. The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place." In R. S. Chaudhary (supra) "35. Fulcrum of the matter is whether the decision in T.N.Bhardwaj (supra) govern the field and would be the binding precedent or 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (17) that of the decision rendered in J. K. Bansal and others (supra) would be binding or both can simultaneously be valid. In the case of J. K. Bansal and others (supra) a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has referred to the decisions in Mrs. Shilpi Bose (supra) and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Bhagwan (supra). Their Lordships have not only noticed but have quoted exhaustively the ratio laid down in the said decisions. Thus, the said decisions have been approved by the three-Judge Bench. In T.N. Bharadwaj (supra) what their Lordships have stated that the guidelines are binding on the Government. The binding nature of the guidelines, in our humble view, has to be understood in the context of Mrs. Shilpi Bose (supra), S. L. Abbas (supra), Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra) and S. S. Kaurav and others (supra). To elaborate the instructions or the guidelines do not confer any enforceable right on an employee. He has no vested right to remain at one post or the other. However, while ordering a transfer the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government whether an order of transfer is passed in violation of the guidelines or the executive instructions. The action of the State Government should not be mala fide or malicious and should be tested on the anvil and touchstone of acceptable reasonableness. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity." 10. This Court also in the case of Darakshan S.A. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in MANU/MH/077/2007 held in para No.5. 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (18) “5. It is a settled principle that transfer is an essential incidence of service. It is primarily in the domain of the concerned authority. To claim or prevent transfer to a particular place is not for the employee. The guidelines or rules framed in relation to the transfer do not vest any indefeasible right in an employee. Of course the authorities are expected to act fairly and wherever such action of the authority is tainted with patent arbitrariness, mala fides and colourable exercise of power, the courts would step in and examine the merits of the claim of a transferred person. A reference in this regard can be made to the a recent judgment of this Court in the case of V.B. Gadekar v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and Anr. Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1428 of 2007 and Ors. decided on 23rd August 2007, wherein the court held as under: ------Every provision should be construed so as to achieve the object of the Act and certainly the larger public interest. Government is the biggest employer and to regulate conditions of service, such provisions are made either by virtue of guidelines or by Rules. Once a discretion is vested in the authority, it has to be exercised uniformly and fairly. There is nothing on record before us which could indicate that the discretion has been exercised for mala fide reasons or is arbitrary. In the case of Harbans Singh v. Union of India and Ors. C.W.P. No. 12929 of 1997 decided on 10th September, 1997, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was concerned with a question raised that under the Rules, Chief Booking Supervisor working at Railway Station at Amritsar could not be transferred outside the Division and thus the transfer of the railway employee was contrary to the transfer rules. While rejecting this contention, the Court held as under: Ministry of Railways have by letter No. (NG)/87/TR/34/ NRIR/JCM of September, 1989 prepared a list of sensitive posts identified for the purpose of periodical transfers. Three categories of staff come under Category-C therein, namely, Commercial Department. The second category is Enquiry/Reservation/Booking Clerk and the third category took in Ticket Collectors/TTEs/Conductors. From this, it can be seen that Booking Clerks and Ticket Collectors are in one category in so far as it relates to periodical transfers. Petitioners being Booking Clerks are Officers, who frequently come into contact with public. Railway Board 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (19) on coming to know of the mode of operation of these petitioners came to the conclusion that they are to be transferred out of the division. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner brought to our notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.C. Agnihotri v. State of Punjab 1996 (3) RSJ 850, in support of his argument that Railways cannot transfer petitioners from one division to another. Such a transfer, without their consent, is illegal. In that case an officer of the Treasuries Department was transferred to the office of Director of Evaluation, a separate department. The transfer was from one department to another department without the officer's consent. Therefore, the Bench came to the conclusion that the transfer outside the cadre in a different department without the officer's consent is patently arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. This decision, according to us, can have no application to the facts on hand. The rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners permit the authorities to transfer a member of the non-gazetted cadre to another division. Policy decisions taken by the Railways permit the authorities to transfer officers holding sensitive posts, where they come into contact with the public, out of the division. When the statutory rule permits the transfer, a Court should not interfere with the same. Especially so is the case when from the files perused, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was on account of the malpractices resorted to by the petitioners that they are transferred. According to Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, even if a transfer order is passed in violation of Executive instructions, the Courts, ordinarily should not interfere with the same and affected party's remedy is to approach the higher authorities in the department. Their Lordships observed, "if the Courts continue to interfere with day to day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0147/1991: (1991) IILLJ591SC. In Union of India v. N.P. Thomas MANU/SC/0258/1993: (1993) ILLJ1063SC, their Lordships had considered whether an officer belonging to the Kerala circle of the 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (20) Department of Telecommunication is liable to be transferred out of that circle. While upholding the transfer outside Kerala Circle, it was observed that since the officer was holding a transferable post, he has no vested right to remain in the Kerala circle. This statement of law applies on all force to the facts on hand. Petitioners before us are holding transferable posts. They have been transferred out of the division in the exigencies of service to improve the working of the Railways and to benefit the travelling public. The petitioners holding transferable posts have no vested right to remain posted at a place of their choice. They are liable to be transferred from one place to the other. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has rightly placed reliance on the decision of Pubi Lombi referred supra, wherein the Apex Court has referred the catena of decisions and observed that ”In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafides, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted.” It is further held that “In view of the stand taken by the Government and in absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench Nyamo Rina v. State of Arunahal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 3529 setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (21) pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA.” 12. Ordinarily, orders of transfer are made in the exercise of administrative authority to meet the exigencies of service and in public interest. How the Administration has to be conducted is not a matter which falls in the judicial domain. Unless the orders of transfer were in conflict with Rules and were made for ulterior motives or in patent arbitrary exercise of powers, the Court would decline to interfere in such matter. The transfers could be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The petitioner in the present case has failed to demonstrate as to how the order of transfer has been passed which is arbitrary exercise of the power. Admittedly, the decision taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for administrative reasons as there was a vacancy in Nashik District and need of the employee to be posted there. There is no pleading that the transfer of the petitioner was with a malafide intention or violating the statutory provisions by the respondent No.1. Admittedly, the judicial interference in such matters is called for only in “exceptional circumstances” or “special circumstances”. The expression "exceptional circumstances" has been explained in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, as conditions which are out of the ordinary course of events, unusual or extraordinary 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (22) circumstances. The Oxford English Dictionary on historical principles, Vol. 1 explains the word "exceptional" of the nature of or forming an exception, unusual. The discretion is vested in the authorities to make an exception of tenure of two and three years wherever special circumstances exist. Special circumstances should be understood in the concept of service jurisprudence and not in its literal sense. Conditions of service employee to stay at the place of posting for three years but this is subject to the exception that, where in the wisdom of the authority concerned, he should, for administrative and exceptional circumstances, even be transferred during that period. The petitioner has been transferred at Nashik Zone as the post at Nashik Zone was vacant. There was an administrative exigency considering the nature of the litigation. Thus, it is apparent that the transfer of the present petitioner was purely on administrative ground. As settled law states that an order of transfer of service can be successfully challenged on very limited grounds i.e. proven malafide or violation of any statutory provision or transfer adversely affecting the service conditions of the transferred employee, which are absent in the present case. None of these grounds are made out in the present petition and, therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass following order: 3.wp.4359.2026.Judgment.odt (23) ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 2. Rule is discharged. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) 13. The Writ Petition is already dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay to the execution and implementation of the order for two weeks. 14. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is already referred in the judgment while disposing of the petition, it is settled law that in absence of pleadings regarding malafides, non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, violation of any statutory provision and the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. 15. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to stay the execution and implementation of the order. In view of that, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate. Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 20:06:09