SUHAIL YOUSUF QAZI vs Forest Department on 21 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the following reliefs:

a. In the premises, it is, therefore, prayed that the non- applicants be pleased to quash impugned transfer order dated 19-10-2026 to the extend it pertains to the transfer of petitioner from the post of Range officer wildlife shalbugh, wetland division , Ganderbal Kashmir to Range officer Hirpora range,Shopain Kashmir and respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duties in the the post of Range officer wildlife shalbugh, wetland division , Ganderbal Kashmir and the petitioner be paid his salary on due dates along with other employees of the department and treat her similarly as to the as to his other batch mates.

b. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicants.

2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant is an employee of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Department and is presently serving as Range Officer, Wildlife, Shalbugh, Wetland Division, Ganderbal, Kashmir, having joined the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

said post pursuant to an order dated 22.11.2025.

3. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Transfer Order dated 19.10.2026, whereby he has been transferred from the post of Range Officer, Wildlife, Shallbugh Range, Wetland Division, Ganderbal, to Range Officer, Hirpora Range, Shopian.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S. H. Thakur, submits that the transfer has been ordered on extraneous considerations to accommodate a blue eyed person and is not warranted in the interest of administration. He further submits that the applicant has not completed the prescribed tenure at his present place of posting in terms of the applicable transfer policy.

5. It is further averred that the applicant was relieved from the post of Range Officer, Wildlife, Shallbugh, Wetland Division, Ganderbal, under pressure from the Personal Officer. However, as stated, the applicant has neither joined at the new place of posting as Range Officer, Hirpora Range, Shopian, nor handed over charge of his existing post and continues to discharge his duties at Ganderbal. The applicant accordingly contends that the impugned transfer order has not been implemented so far.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

6. It is contended in the O.A. that prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 19.10.2026, vide Forest Order No. 275 of 2025 dated 22.11.2025, the applicant was transferred from Technical Officer to WLW Shopian to I/C Range Officer Wildlife Shallbugh, Wetland Division, Kashmir. It is added that the present impugned order dated 19.10.2026 has been issued before completion of a year, without allowing the applicant to complete his tenure of two years, as the same is violative of the Transfer Policy issued vide Government Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010, where he has relied upon Clause C (1) wherein it is held that the minimum tenure of a Government employee on a post shall be two years and a maximum of three years.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the impugned transfer is premature, frequent and prejudicial to his interests and submits that the same has been issued without any legal necessity under the general expression “in the interest of administration.” He submits that the transfer is punitive in nature and has approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs.

8. Admittedly, transfer is an incident of service and an

ABHISHEK PUNIA

employee after accepting public employment, cannot seek posting of his choice. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision, Courts cannot exercise its power to judicial review. To this effect, I am fortified by the catena of judgments:

1. Anita Sharma vs. State of J&K 2019 Legal Eagle 489

2. Mohammad Yaqub v. State of J&K 1984 SLJ 167

3. Syed Hilal Ahmad & Ors. v. State 2015 (3) JKJ 398

4. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Shri Bhagwan 2008

(8) SCC 574

5. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3;

6. Namrata Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 OnLine SC 3337

7. B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;

8. Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;

9. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;

10. Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;

11. Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532;

12. State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;

13. Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214;

14. Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169;

ABHISHEK PUNIA

15. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;

16. Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;

17. State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405;

18. State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402;

19. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299;

20. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592;

21. Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304;

22. Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178;

23. State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306;

24. Union of India v. Gh. Mohd. Sheikh 1998 SLJ JK 175

25. Ankit Yadu v. State of Chhatisgarh (WPS No. 6125/2026) Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur decided on 18.08.2026

9. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, however, vehemently argues that the instant O.A. deserves to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner has not a vested right to seek a posting of his choice.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to further buttress his arguments submits that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfer may cause irreparable harm to the Govt. servant, and can uproot a family, disrupt the education children a

ABHISHEK PUNIA

and number of other complications. He submits that the Govt. therefore should be reasonable, fair in implementation of its policies relating to transfers. To this effect, reliance is laid upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955.

11. Heard.

12. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

13. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation and decide the case of the applicant in accordance with law, keeping in view the Transfer Policy dated 28.07.2010 and the merits of the case. The above exercise shall be done by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks from today positively. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 19.10.2026, as it relates to the applicant, shall not be given effect to for two weeks. However, it is made clear that this Order shall have no bearing upon the impugned order after expiry of two weeks, in which period the respondents shall decide the case of the applicant. Any delay in deciding the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

case of the applicant within the stipulated period shall be attributable to the respondents.

14. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1170/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

15. No order as to costs.

(M. S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master 21.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA