Amrik Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Anshul Baghla, Advocate, for the petitioners. SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) ****

#1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-13), whereby the representation seeking transfer of batallion from Unit 158 BN BSF Jalalabad to any unit or any sector in home district or nearby home district i.e. Unit No.45, Ajnala, District Amritsar or Sector Amritsar or any other nearby place, has been rejected.

#3. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Anita Balyan, Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are husband and wife and they have four children, who are residing at their hometown i.e. Ajnala, District Amritsar, under the care of a maid, as there is no family member available to look after them. Therefore, the petitioners filed representations (Annexures P-11 & P-12) to respondent No.3 seeking transfer to their home district or any place nearby district. He further contends that the petitioners were not provided any government accommodation at the place of posting and therefore, they could not keep their children with them. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.

#5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Government accommodation, i.e. Quarter No.59, Type-I, had already been allotted to the petitioners on 05.04.2026, but the petitioners themselves informed the authorities that the said accommodation was not required by them. She, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed.

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

#7. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioners are relying upon order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-14) to contend that the personnel can be posted to their home town as well. The petitioners represented respondent No.3 vide representations (Annexures P-11 & P-12), but their representations have been rejected. The order which the petitioners are relying upon are just instructions, that the previous instructions, which prohibited the personnel of the Punjab State from being posted to their home or buffer district are abrogated with immediate effect and the order superseded all the previous orders pertaining to the matter. The intent of the order is that the personnel can be transferred to their home town as well but it is not a matter of right that he/she should be transferred to his/her home town.

#8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that transfer is an incident of service in the judgments rendered in B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 1986(4) SCC 131, Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa, 1996(1) SCT 22 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, 2004(12) SCC 299.

#9. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in B. Varadha Rao’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:-

#4. The learned Judges observe that these penalties can be imposed on a Government servant where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him under the Rules by the competent authority. They further observe that Rule 18 of the Rules, therefore, provides for appeals against orders imposing penalties referred to and specified in Rule 8, and add : “If an order of transfer does not amount to an order of penalty or 'any other order' falling within Rule 19, such an order does not attract and is not appealable either under Rule 18 or Rule 19.” We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges that transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. The words 'or other conditions of service in juxtaposition to the preceding words 'denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension' in Rule 19(1)(a) must be construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service mast result in prejudice to the Government servant and some disadvantage touching his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave, etc. It is well understood that transfer of a Government servant who is appointed to it particular cadre of transferable posts from one, place to another it an ordinary incident of service and, therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. As the learned Judges rightly observe : “The norms enunciated by Government for the guidance of its officers in the matter of regulating transfers are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfers in the exigencies of administration than vesting of any immunity from transfer in the Government servants.”

#10. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in Abani Kanta Ray’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:- “10. It is settled that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. [See N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, 1995(1) SCT 269 (SC) : 1994(6) SCC 98]. The transfer of D.N. Mishra in this background being clearly in public interest, there was no permissible ground available to the Tribunal for quashing it. We are constrained to observe that the Division Bench of the Tribunal which made the impugned order dated 26.8.1993 quashing the transfer of D.N. Mishra on the ground of malice of the appellant as the Chairman of the Tribunal did so against the material on record and the facts beyond controversy which borders on judicial impropriety. It may also be noted that such comments were made against the Chairman without even a notice to him and as stated in the order itself after treating the application for impleading the Chairman to be deemed rejected.”

#11. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:- “4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1995(4) SCT 455 (SC) : AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2444). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India & ors. v. Janardan Debanath & anr., (2004) 4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows : “No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002(1) SCT 236 (SC) : (2001) 8 SCC 574".

#12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

#13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

07.07.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No