Khursheed Ahmad Ganie vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 15 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. QUASH AND SET ASIDE Order No. DSEK/A-TS/1437 dated 05.10.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Director School Education Kashmir) in so far as it relates to the transfer of the Applicant from GMS Chadoora to HS Shalinar, Khansahab.

b. DIRECT the Respondents to allow the Applicant to continue performing his duties as Master / Head of Institution (Hol) at Govt. Middle School (GMS) Chadoora, District Budgam, with all consequential service benefits.

c. Grant any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.

2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant is working as a Master with over 33 years of unblemished service, who is posted as a Head of Institution at Govt. Middle School Chadoora, District Budgam. As stated, yhe applicant in terms of the order impugned dated 05.10.2026, in the administrative exigency and in the interest of administration, has been transferred and posted in High School Shalnar, District Budgam, against available vacancy.

3. The challenge has been thrown to the order impugned on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

4. Perusal of the contents of the O.A in Para 4.4 reveals that the applicant’s family is associated with a political party/ideology different from that of the party presently in power and in view of some political differences, the local MLA has recommended the applicant’s transfer from his present place of posting with the ulterior objective of causing him hardships and subjecting him to harassment and victimization on account of his perceived political association. It is also averred that the impugned order of transfer is in violation to the comprehensive Transfer Policy issued vide Government Order No. 335-JK (Edu) of 2026 dated 20.08.2026, which governs the transfers of the employees of the School Education Department. It is also averred in the O.A. that circumstances surrounding the impugned transfer order demonstrate that the same has not been issued as a routine administrative transfer, otherwise in the public and administrative interest, but has been issued in the colorable exercise of power to satisfy the alleged demand/recommendation of the local MLA.

5. The matter initially came up for consideration on 12.10.2026. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

applicant that the order impugned has been passed by an incompetent authority stating that the Director, School Education Kashmir, lacks the power to transfer a Master, in this view of the matter, Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, for the respondents, was directed to file an affidavit as regards the competence of the Director, School Education Kashmir, to transfer the Masters.

6. Today, the matter came up for consideration. The short submissions supported by an affidavit have been filed by the respondents.

7. Perusal of the same reveals that the Director, School Education, Kashmir, being the Head of the Department at the Divisional Level, is competent to effect transfers and postings of the employees falling within the Divisional Cadre, in accordance with the applicable Transfer Policy and the relevant delegation of powers.

8. It is apt to mention here that specifically the affidavit does not disclose as to whether the Director has the power to transfer a Master. However, it has been clarified in the Para 4 of the affidavit that the Director, School Education, is competent to effect a

ABHISHEK PUNIA

transfer in question, subject to applicability of the aforesaid provisions to the applicant’s cadre and the relevant service record.

9. Admittedly, law is no more res integra that in matters of transfer, Courts have a very limited power to interfere. Courts can only interfere where an order of transfer has been passed by an incompetent authority, same is mala fide or not for the professed purpose and against the statute. To this effect, I am fortified by a catena of judgments:

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

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

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

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

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and

ABHISHEK PUNIA

another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, submits that the impugned transfer order having been issued at the behest of the MLA concerned, as stated by learned counsel for the applicant, as such, cannot be taken note of for the reasons

ABHISHEK PUNIA

that if mala fides are alleged against any authority or individual, what is incumbent upon the party alleging mala fides is to array such authority/individual/a party, in person so that he gets a chance to rebut the allegations as leveled, as such, the allegations as leveled by the applicant in the O.A. in the absence, cannot be taken note of.

11. Transfer is an exigency of service, and an employee has no right to be posted at a place of his choice. It is always left to the domain of the competent authority to transfer an employee in the best public and administrative interest. However, as far as practicable taking note of the Transfer Policy.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sheikh Manzoor along with Ms. Asma Irshad Khan and Rozy Banoo, submits that even otherwise the impugned order of transfer is against the Transfer Policy, as the academic session is at the end and now exams are only to be conducted and, they could very well be conducted in the presence of the incumbent who is head, the Government Middle School. However, Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, for the respondents, submits that transfer is an exigency of

ABHISHEK PUNIA

service, the applicant cannot, as such, has a matter of right seek for his continuation at a place where he has been continuing past more than 03 (three) years.

13. Undoubtedly, in case an employee is affected by his transfer, he has a right to represent before the competent authority to seek consideration of his transfer, in view of its merits and his individual necessities, and there are cases where transfers cause hardships to an employee. The first responder to such a request for consideration of genuine hardships is the competent authority, who is the best judge to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances and merits of the case, as Courts have a very limited power to interfere in the matters of transfers.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant while submitting his arguments submits that Director School Education would not ordinarily pass orders transferring Masters. To this effect, he has referred to an Order No. DSEK/A-TS/(7972589)/1221 dated 11.09.2026 issued by the Director, School Education, Kashmir, wherein he submits that the Director has transferred a Master

ABHISHEK PUNIA

under the orders of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Kashmir. Copy of the order submitted is ordered to be placed on file.

15. Be that as it may.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

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

18. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the instant O.A. shall be treated as a representation by the respondents. The competent authority – Director, School Education, Kashmir, shall pass appropriate orders within one week positively, keeping in view the contents and merits of the O.A. and for one week, the present position of the applicant shall not be disturbed. However, it is made clear that the competent authority shall make all endeavour to dispose of the representation within the aforesaid period positively.

19. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, shall submit a copy of the disposal order before this Court.

20. List this matter for compliance on 28.10.2026.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

21. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, shall also convey a copy of this Order to the Director, School Education Kashmir, for its compliance.

22. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1136/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

23. No order as to costs.

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

Abhishek Punia Court Master 15.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA