WA/813/2026 of RAHULA PADHI Vs UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS on 24 June 2026

ORDER

24.06.2026

04.

1. Assailing the order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14297 of 2026 refusing to interfere with the order of transfer dated 22nd December, 2025 issued by the DIG (ESTT.) DTE, Central Reserve Police Force, Directorate General, New Delhi, the writ petitioner has filed this intra-Court appeal invoking provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948.

2. It is submitted by Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that instead of dismissing the writ petition along with the batch of matters with regard to transfers pertaining to many employees, the learned Single Judge should have considered individual grievance. It is further submitted that since the mother of the writ petitioner is suffering from serious ill-health and requires medical attention and presence of the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge should have appreciated the difficulty that would ensue in the event the writ petitioner joins in the present place of transfer.

2.1. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the representation eliciting pertinent fact has not been considered appropriately by the Authority concerned. Referring to Clause 7 of the Transfer Policy vide Standing Order-04/2022 dated 27th September, 2022, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the case of the writ petitioner should have been considered sympathetically as a special case and thereby he is entitled to be retained in Bhubaneswar. Therefore, he fervently prays for indulgence of this Court in this appeal.

3. In opposition, Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petitioner has completed more than four and half years against normal tenure of three years at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Bhubaneswar, Odisha having joined at Group Centre in Bhubaneswar on 18th August, 2021.

3.1. Instruction being received from the Deputy Inspector General (Adm.), Odisha Sector Headquarter, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the request of the writ petitioner was acceded to on earlier occasion and he was permitted to be retained in Group Centre, CRPF,

Bhubaneswar for one year vide order dated 24th January, 2025. However, during Summer Chain Transfer vide order dated 22nd December, 2025 the writ petitioner is placed under transfer and his further retention against such transfer order has been considered and rejected vide order dated 10th February, 2026 by the DIG (Estt), Directorate General, CRPF.

3.2. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that after disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has been relieved on 23rd May, 2026 from Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar and he is supposed to report at 112 Bn, Kangpokpi (Manipur). Under such circumstances, he submitted that the present intra-Court appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

5. Considered the rival contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This Court is not oblivious of the notion that transfer is a condition of service and it is within the power of the employer. Interference with such transfers on administrative exigencies by exercising judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. It is trite that this Court in exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. It is also unwarranted to tinker with the transfer policy. Transfer is a matter of discretion, which is required to be left to the employer. This Court having perused the pleadings perceives that the petitioner has neither made out any case attributing mala fide action of the employer nor has he demonstrated arbitrariness in passing order of transfer or consideration of representation. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it.

6. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances.

6.1. It may be true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set-up of the concerned employee but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down, unless the ingredients discussed above is demonstrably manifest. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. This court is not supposed to substitute its own decision in the matter of transfer overriding the exigencies that are considered by the employer by taking up merit of representation of the employee.

7. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the writ Court should be loathe to interfere in the matters of transfer; more so when the authority concerned has taken a view upon reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner. Interference with transfer orders at the drop of a hat completely dislocates the administrative functions of the Department, that too a disciplined organization as that of the present one, i.e., Central Reserve Police Force, where much greater latitude is required to be accorded to the authorities concerned to decide on the posting of various persons.

8. In the present case, it is apparent from the instructions imparted by the Deputy Inspector General (Adm.), Odisha Sector Headquarter, CRPF, Bhubaneswar that the grievance of the writ petitioner was (re)considered by the competent authority and has been rejected. It is also noticed that the writ petitioner has been continuing in the Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar since 18th August, 2021 and his representation for retention was also considered for one year in the last year.

9. Perusal of record reveals that an affidavit dated 16th June, 2026 has come to be filed in the present writ appeal with the following assertion:

“3. The mother of the petitioner has been suffering from cancer since long. She has been under treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. Operation was undertaken twice and now it requires further operation as advised by the

Doctors. On 15.06.2026 the Doctors advised to undertake operation after stabilization of the patient but no date is fixed.”

9.1. Today, when the matter is taken up, an additional affidavit dated 23th June, 2026 has been filed with the following affirmation:

“5. The petitioner may be allowed to continue at his present place of posting at Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar for a further period of three months to attend his ailing mother who has been suffering from cancer.”

9.2. The writ petitioner seems to have feigned ignorance and filed such additional affidavit. In fact, from the instructions as received by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, it is revealed that the writ petitioner has already been relived on 23rd May, 2026 from Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar. It is also perceived that the writ petitioner has been retained in the said Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar beyond the tenure as specified in the transfer policy and he was retained for one year beyond the normal period. It is also forthcoming from the said instruction that representation of the writ petitioner has been re- considered and rejected by a reasoned and speaking order passed on 20th May, 2026.

10. Under the aforesaid premises, this Court is not inclined to show indulgence in the order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C) No.14297 of 2026.

11. In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. As a result of disposal of the writ

appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application(s), shall stand disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Jun-2026 18:18:18 Signature Not Verified