Sanjay Kumar Soni vs REVENUE on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

Per Rameshwar Vyas :

The applicant, being aggrieved by transfer order dated 06.10.2026 (Annex.A/1) whereby while transferring seven officials, the applicant was transferred from CGST, Bikaner Rural to CGST Hanumangarh Division, to the post of AE, has preferred the present O.A. to quash and set aside the above transfer order in so far as it relates to him and seeks a further direction against the respondents to allow him to continue at

2- [OA=256/2026]

Bikaner Station until completion of his tenure or in alternate at the end of current academic session 2026-2027.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that in compliance of the directions given by this Tribunal on 14.10.2026 for deciding the representation of the applicant, the respondent while considering the grounds raised by the applicant with regard to disruption of the study of his son on account of mid-session transfer, did not accept his prayer to allow him to continue at Bikaner Station.

Once the representation is considered and rejected, it becomes final in respect of transfer and should not be interfered with by this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Director General, ESIC Vs. UOI & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 15589/2024 along with connected matters decided on 11.12.2024, wherein, Hon’ble Madras Court held that administrative transfer orders are beyond the realm of the power of judicial review. Adjudication of transfer on merits are ordinarily impermissible and personal or family grievances of the employees are to be considered only by the employer concerned, and not by the Courts.

4. The Hon’ble Court also observed that, if the transfer order has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala fide are raised ,the authorities against whom such allegations are raised, must be impleaded as a party-respondent in their personal capacity. The Courts cannot interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Government organizations.

3- [OA=256/2026]

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been transferred in the middle of the academic session without completing his service tenure of four years at Bikaner. He was transferred to Bikaner vide order dated 12.06.2024 (Annex.A/4). The tenure postings at Bikaner is of four years. The applicant’s son is studying at Bikaner in 12th standard under CBSE Board at Bikaner Boys School, Jaipur Road, Bikaner and is also attending coaching classes there to prepare for the competitive examinations. The applicant also pleads that his parents are aged and ailing. The applicant himself is a chronic patient of COPD, acute Bronchitis and asthma, which makes frequent long-distance travel difficult for him. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in KVS Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6207/2004 [reported in 2004 Supreme (SC) 1108] and N.P. Singh Vs. O. Karuppa, Madras, in Case No. 546/1994 [reported in 1994 Supp.2 SCC 666]. In the case of D.P.Pandey, Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that transfer is an incidence of service and cannot be interfered with by the Courts unless the same is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of the guidelines governing the transfer. In the matter of N.P.Singh, Hon’ble the Supreme Court taking a lenient view directed that the children of an employee who are studying should be given due weightage in effecting transfer, provided the exigencies of service are not urgent.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record as also the speaking order passed by the Joint Commissioner on the representation filed by the applicant, we are of the view that the transfer in question, cannot be held as arbitrary or issued on account of any mala fide. The applicant spent

4- [OA=256/2026]

approximately 90% of his service tenure at Bikaner and has no vested right to remain at Bikaner forever. Therefore, the applicant’s transfer cannot be interfered with on the ground that he has been disturbed without completion of four years term at Bikaner.

7. In so far as the question of transferring the applicant during the middle of the academic session, there is force in the contention of learned counsel. The applicant’s son is presently studying in Class 12th CBSE Board, at Bikaner. This Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents to consider the ground with regard to disruption of study of his son while deciding the representation but, the respondents did not care to deal with this issue while deciding the representation on 17.10.2026. Transfer policy also discourages mid session transfers disrupting the education of children studying in Class 12th.. In view of the above, we deem it just and proper to direct the respondent department to keep in abeyance the transfer order dated 06.10.2026, qua the applicant, until completion of the current academic session i.e. 31.03.2027.

8. Resultantly, while not interfering the impugned transfer order, we direct the respondent authorities to keep in abeyance the operation of the impugned transfer until end of present education session i.e. 31.03.2027, after furnishing by the applicant an undertaking to the effect that after expiry of the academic session, he would comply with the order without any protest. The O.A. stands disposed of in the above terms. The pending Misc. Application stands disposed of.

9. No costs.

(Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) jrm

5- [OA=256/2026]