Hardeep Hooda v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. *** Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) qua the petitioner to the extent of posting of the petitioner from the office of District Attorney, Sonipat to the office of District Attorney, Yamuna Nagar as the transfer order has been passed only after within one year of his posting at Sonipat and the same is in violation of the online transfer policy of Assistant District Attorneys notified on 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) as the petitioner has not completed the maximum prescribed tenure of five years.

#2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the Prosecution Department, Haryana as CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 2 of 9 Assistant District Attorney (Group-B) on 11.08.2018. On 21.01.2022, the Haryana Government had introduced online Transfer Policy (Annexure P- 1) for Assistant District Attorneys. Vide order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was transferred from Hissar to Sonipat, Haryana at Sr. No. 108. Accordingly, petitioner had joined office of District Attorney, Sonipat on 13.06.2025. However, vide impugned order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6), petitioner has again been transferred from Sonipat to Yamuna Nagar at Sr. No. 59.

#3. Learned counsel contends that the said transfer cannot be sustained as transfer of the petitioner has been ordered only 1 year and 1 month after his posting in the office of District Attorney, Sonipat; and the same is in violation of Model Online Transfer Policy dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-5). It is pointed out that several Assistant District Attorneys, who have longer tenures in the office of District Attorney, Sonipat than the petitioner, have been kept at the same place; whereas the petitioner has been transferred. It is further pointed out that in similar case i.e. CWP- 17420-2026 titled as Arti vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on

27.05.2026 (Annexure P-7), transfer has been stayed. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and impugned order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) be quashed.

#4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that transfer is an exigency of service; and as per the established position in CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 3 of 9 law, petitioner cannot challenge the same. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

#5. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State.

#6. Perusal of the record of the case shows that the respondent- State had initially formulated Transfer Policy dated 23.05.2025 which was equally applicable to all Departments in the State of Haryana except the School Education Teachers. However, the said Policy went into litigation and was consequentially withdrawn. The record further reveals that the first Division Bench of this Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the fact that against 22 Judicial Courts in the said District Court of Sirsa, only 10 Assistant District Attorneys were posted. Consequentially, the Court on its own motion had passed order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) in CWP-PIL-86-2026 titled as Court on its own Motion vs. State of Haryana directing the States of Punjab and Haryana to furnish details regarding the exact place of deputation of each DA/DDA/ADA and where are they presently working. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) came to be passed in the said CWP-PIL-86-2026 directing as follows: - “6. By way of writ of mandamus, this Court directs the State of Haryana to terminate the deputation of all 285 District Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and Assistant CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 4 of 9 District Attorneys, who are posted on deputation to other departments, boards and corporations and post them to undertake the Court work in all 23 districts of State of Haryana, within a period of one week and report compliance in that regard.”

#7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that transfer of the petitioner has been made in pursuance to directions issued vide order dated 15.05.2026. It has also been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that after passing of the above said order dated 15.5.2026, an intensive exercise of rationalisation of all the Courts was undertaken to determine as to which ADA is suitable for which District Court in terms of the nature and quantum of work in each Court; and it is only thereafter that the present transfers were effected. It is the established position in law that transfer is an exigency of Service and cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court. In the facts noted above, it is clear that the administration of Justice in the State of Haryana is liable to be be adversely affected, in case this Court interferes with the impugned order.

#8. Reference is made to a judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Kirandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2875022 decided on 23.03.2026; wherein it is held as under: - “Transfer is an incidence of service, and no employee has a legally enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial interference in transfer matters is permissible only when the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides, issued by an incompetent authority, or violates statutory provisions.” CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 5 of 9 The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:- “5. Law on the issue is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to be remained posted at a particular place of posting and the transfer policy is mere guidelines and is not legally enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar and another : 2008 (1) SCT 704, while considering the similar issue has held as under :- "7. xx xx xx xx xx Apart from the said fact, the question which is required to be examined is whether such posting and transfer policy confers any enforceable right in favour of respondent No.1 so as to challenge his transfer purportedly made on administrative ground before the Tribunal. Guidelines have been framed by the authorities to regulate their internal working and with a view to deal with different situations evenly. Such guidelines are not statutory in nature. Any departure from the said guidelines by itself does not give right to an employee to successfully challenge his transfer. The transfer can be challenged on limited grounds i.e., when the same is not within the cadre or the authority is not competent to order transfer or it is in violation of the statutory rules or actuated by mala fide. The transfer is normal incidence of service and an employee has no right to resist his transfer on the basis of alleged violation of the guidelines. The issue is not res integra. In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992(1) SCT 161 : AIR 1992 SC 519, Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the guidelines for posting husband and wife at one station even if their employers be different. The Court found that the only thing required in terms of the guidelines is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration. Thus, no right is conferred on an employee to remain at the same CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 6 of 9 place even if administrative exigency and transfer policy do not permit it. 8. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1995 (4) SCT 455 : AIR 1993 SC 2444, Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the following effect :- "Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer of vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guidelines, however, do not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right". 9. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SCT 368 : AIR 2004 SC 2165, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no government servant can contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. The administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving of denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service. The order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 7 of 9 vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions. 10. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002 (1) SCT 236 : AIR 2001 SC 3309, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals 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 management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 11. In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in Jagir Singh Kanungo v. The State of Punjab through the Secretary Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1993 (2) SCT 128 : 1993 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 376, has the occasion to interpret the guidelines issued by the State of Punjab for conclusion of the inquiry proceedings in a time bound manner. It was held that if the enquiry proceedings are not completed within the aforesaid period, no right accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for enforcement of those guidelines. It was held to the following effect :- "If the State Government have issued certain guidelines for the guidance of the various departments or the disciplinary authorities to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expeditiously or even within a fixed period, it does not CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 8 of 9 mean that after the expiry of that period, a right in law accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for the enforcement of those guide-lines... " Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters and the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in an application under section 19 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of transfer is illegal exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal. The guidelines are not statutory and do not confer any legally enforceable right on the basis of which an employee can challenge his transfer. No doubt, normally the guidelines are to be adhered to by the administrative authorities but their non-adherence will entitle an employee to bring such facts to the notice of the superior authorities but does not confer any right to seek quashing of the transfer either in an application under section 19 of the Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under section 19 of the Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution, transfer order can be interfered with if it is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or in violation of the statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. Since none of the three conditions are satisfied in the case set up by respondent No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. "

#6. To the same effect is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mool Chand Tewatia v. Union of India and others : 2016 (2) SCT 427, wherein it has been held that the transfer in an incidence of service and the Courts are not to interfere unless the Courts finds that the transfer is due to mala fide or against the service rules.

#7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 279, has examined the scope of judicial review in the transfer matters and has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, it has been held as under: - CWP-22481-2026 (O&M) 9 of 9 "10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."”

#9. In the afore-noted factual and legal circumstance, petitioner cannot seek to invoke benefit of Model Online Transfer Policy dated

25.06.2026 (Annexure P-5). In any event as pointed out by learned State Counsel, the new Model Online Transfer Policy dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) is at initial stage of formulation and is yet in the process of being implemented and necessary steps are yet to be taken for the full, final and proper implementation of the said Policy. Moreover, the said Policy are only Guidelines and cannot be said to have the force of law. Even otherwise, no extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner for quashing of impugned transfer order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-6).

22.07.2026 Divyanshi Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE