AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
The applicant has filed the present OA, under 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs: -
Para VIII
1.The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned decisions of the respondent no. 4 dated 23.05.2026 Order No. GJCO-11/20(11)/6/2020-GJ-ADMN/E11604 at ANNEXURE-A/1 transferring the applicant from Ahmedabad SSA to Bhuj SSA, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16of the Constitution of India, and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to restor back the applicant at Ahmedabad SSA and act according to the stay particular list dated 20.02.2026.
2.Be pleased to declare that the respondents have vilated the binding guidelines/instructions dated 7.3.2011 provided for roation/tenure transfer of the employees while passing the impugned orders of transfer of the applicant.
3.Any other relief this Hon’ble Tribu al deem fit and proper, in interest of justice be granted.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The applicant, is working as Junior Telecom Officer (Electrical) [JTO (E)] with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). He was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Gandhinagar, Gujarat Telecom District, in the year 1999. Upon constitution of BSNL from the Department of Telecommunications with effect from 01.10.2000, the applicant, being a Group-B officer, opted for permanent absorption in BSNL. Subsequently, the designation of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was changed to Junior Telecom Officer (Electrical), and the applicant has been working in the said cadre.
The applicant was transferred from Gandhinagar to Mehsana in the year 2006 and remained posted there till 2013. Thereafter, he was transferred from Mehsana to Ahmedabad with effect from 01.07.2013 and since been working at Ahmedabad as JTO (Electrical).
The respondents issued an intra-Circle transfer and posting order dated 23.05.2026 bearing Order No. GJCO-11/20(11)/6/2020-GJ-ADMN/E11604, whereby nine JTOs/officers belonging to different streams were transferred/posted to different areas. The order stated that the transfers were being made for reasons including own request and long stay and the applicant herein was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhuj. Prior to the impugned order, the applicant had submitted an online intra-Circle transfer application dated 12.03.2026, giving options of Himatnagar, Nadiad, Mehsana and Ahmedabad. But, none of his options was accepted by the respondents.
The applicant has challenged the transfer primarily on the ground that several other JTOs (Electrical) in different Business Areas/Units of Gujarat Circle had remained at their respective stations for a longer period than him, but had not been transferred.
The applicant further submitted a representation dated 25.05.2026 requesting cancellation/modification of his transfer stating that his parents, who were in their eighties, were dependent upon him for their medical and regular care.
The applicant relied upon the Station Seniority List dated 11.08.2023 and contended that the officers mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 5 had longer tenure/stay than him in their respective Business Areas/SSAs. According to him, despite the existence of such long-staying officers, he was selectively transferred. He therefore alleged that the action of the respondents was discriminatory and arbitrary.
The applicant also relied upon the modified/corrected transfer order dated 30.05.2026 and submitted that the respondents had modified the transfer orders of several executives and had accommodated some of them on their requests, whereas his request for continuing at Ahmedabad had not been accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned transfer order dated 23.05.2026 is arbitrary and discriminatory, as the applicant has been transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhuj despite other officers having longer stay at their respective stations. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been serving at Ahmedabad since 01.07.2013. Though she does not dispute that transfer is an incident of service, her contention is that the power of transfer has to be exercised fairly and in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.
Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the BSNL Employee Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008 and the instructions dated 07.03.2011 and submitted that the principle of “first come first go” and the cases of employees having longer stay were required to be considered while making tenure transfers.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant had given four transfer options, namely Himatnagar, Nadiad, Mehsana and Ahmedabad, but none of them was accepted particularly when the respondents subsequently modified/corrected the transfer orders of several officers by order dated 30.05.2026, the applicant’s request also deserved fair consideration.
Learned counsel further referred to the transfer of Shri S.M. Kureshi from Rajkot to Ahmedabad and submitted that the applicant was transferred from Ahmedabad to accommodate another employee. It is also submitted that one Shri Pareshkumar Patel, who had earlier been transferred to Bhuj but, according to the applicant, did not join there. She submitted that the consequences of non-compliance with the earlier transfer order should have been dealt with against the concerned employee and not by transferring the applicant to Bhuj.
In this regard, learned counsel would place reliance upon Seshrao Nagorao Umap v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (1)BOMCR30, (1985)IILJ73BOM Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & Others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169, and East Coast Railway & Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678, and submit that though transfer is an incident of service, the power has to be exercised bona fide, reasonably and in accordance with the governing norms. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly relied on the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 435/2021 in the matter of Hitesh Mehra Vs BSNL & Others decided on 24.01.2022.
Learned counsel finally submitted that the applicant is about 55 years of age and has elderly parents requiring his care. She would therefore pray that the impugned transfer order be quashed qua the applicant and he may be permitted to continue at Ahmedabad or, alternatively, his case be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.
Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant.
The respondents, in their written reply, have opposed the prayer sought in the OA and submitted that the impugned transfer was made in accordance with the applicable transfer policy and in the interest of administration. The respondents have submitted that the applicant has been posted at Ahmedabad since 01.07.2013 and has completed more than thirteen years there, whereas the maximum Station/SSA tenure applicable to an STS officer is stated to be ten years. Thus, the applicant had already exceeded the prescribed tenure.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant relied upon an earlier Station Seniority List, whereas the latest final Station Seniority List as on 30.11.2025 was available. According to the respondents, the cases of the officers senior to the applicant were separately considered. Shri R.R. Pandar was not transferred due to his caregiver status, Smt. S.P. Dharmik was covered by disability protection, Smt. B.P. Patel was transferred along with the applicant and Shri N.U. Dodia was likely to be transferred on account of impending promotion. He further contended that, after considering the relevant circumstances, it was found that the applicant was the senior-most available JTO (Electrical) for transfer. It is also submitted that the applicable transfer policy, as corrected up to 24.11.2014, permits the management to transfer or retain an employee depending upon administrative requirements and the interest of service.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the JTO (Electrical) post at Bhuj had remained vacant since 2023 and that the services of a JTO (Electrical) were required there for day-to-day field work. The applicant’s transfer was therefore made to meet the operational requirement of Bhuj Business Area. It is also stated there were no vacancies at Himatnagar and Nadiad, while the applicant could not be accommodated at Ahmedabad or Mehsana due to the availability of relevant seniority position.
With regard to Shri Pareshkumar Patel, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although he had been transferred to Bhuj, he failed to join there. However, communications dated 16.04.2026, 04.05.2026, 02.06.2026 and 11.06.2026 were issued to him directing him to join. With regard to Shri Kureshi, he was transferred from Rajkot to Ahmedabad on his own request and such request transfers are permissible under the transfer policy.
Learned counsel for the respondents also denied any mala fide or “pick and choose” policy and submitted that the impugned transfer was made in public interest and administrative exigency. The judgments relied upon by the applicant do not create any right in his favour to remain posted at a particular station. Hence, the OA, deserves to be dismissed.
Applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated that the impugned transfer order is vitiated by unequal treatment, non-application of mind and pick and choose methodology.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant completed about 13 years as against maximum of 10 years of posting tenure at Ahmedabad in his grade. He had applied for rotational transfer and informed his choice places. It is correct that he could not be accommodated at any of the choice places. In our view, not posting officials at his/her own choice place ipso facto does not infringe any legal right as no one can claim to be posted at a particular place as a matter of right. Competent authority has to decide the place at which particular official has to be posted keeping into account the relevant guidelines and transfer policy. Unless and until transfer is in violation of the statutory rule or on account of malafides on the part of the competent authority, same could not be interfered with in a routine manner. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar in nature.
This Tribunal has considered the scope of interference in transfer matter in case of Anil Kumar Maurya Vs Union of India in OA No. 127/2013 decided on 28.06.2013 and while taking note of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case Shilpi Bose Vs State of Bihar & Ors., 1992 SCC (L&S) 127 stated as under:
“4.In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. 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."
(emphasis supplied)
The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shilpi Bose's case (supra) that even if the transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order and that instead the affected party should approached higher authority in the department is an important pointer to all courts and tribunals that they should not foray into the administrative territories unless there is a violation of legal rules or there is a manifest instance of malafides.
We find no irregularities in the procedure adopted by the respondent authority in issuing the transfer order as the applicant has been transferred in the interest of service upon completion of his tenure. Looking into the facts and circumstances of each matter by this Tribunal in every transfer case against which the applicant has raised some doubts of bonafides, would not be just and proper. The relief in the present OA has not been prayed for on the ground of malafides. Transfer is part and parcel of the Government service and in the absence of any special circumstances in this case, this Bench is not inclined to interfere with the transfer of the applicant.
In view of the above discussion, there are no valid grounds for us to interfere with the transfer of the applicant from Ahmedabad SSA to Bhuj SSA. Therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed. Hence the same is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to cost.