Do transfer guidelines confer an enforceable right on an employee to claim a particular place or post?
Service law — Administrative transfer — Transfer guidelines — Option exercised on bifurcation of a district — Judicial review — Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service — r.40(a) —
Transfer guidelines — No enforceable right —
Held: Instructions issued to facilitate employees to get a transfer to the place of their choice cannot be construed as a Rule so as to have an enforceable right, and cannot be equated with a statute or rules; transfer being a condition of service, transfer guidelines do not confer an enforceable right on the employees to claim a place or post. (¶1, 13)
Administrative transfer — Scope of judicial review —
Held further: Interference in administrative transfer orders is beyond the realm of the power of judicial review, and an order of administrative transfer is entertainable only where it has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or where mala fides are alleged, in which case the authority concerned must be impleaded in a personal capacity. (¶4, 6)
Administration guidelines — Transgression —
Held further: An order of transfer made even in transgression of administration guidelines cannot be interfered with, as such guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable rights; they at best afford an opportunity to approach the higher authorities for redress. (¶8, 9)
Option in the matter of transfer — Place or post not a matter of right —
Held further: Exercise of an option would not confer a right to claim the place or post, and facilitating an employee to exercise an option is not a ground to challenge an administrative transfer effected in the interest of public administration. (¶15)
Do transfer guidelines confer an enforceable right on an employee to claim a particular place or post?
No. Transfer guidelines do not confer an enforceable right on an employee to claim a particular place or post. Guidelines are issued to avoid inconsistency while effecting transfers, to maintain transparency and to eliminate unnecessary discrimination amongst employees; transfer being a condition of service, they are for the convenience of the establishment and would not confer any right on the employees to claim a place or post as a matter of right. [¶13, ¶14]
Can an order of transfer made in transgression of administration guidelines be interfered with by a Court?
No. An order of transfer made in transgression of administration guidelines cannot be interfered with by a Court, as such guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable rights. Administrative guidelines regulating transfers at best afford an opportunity to the servant concerned to approach the higher authorities for redress, but cannot deprive the competent authority of the power to transfer in public interest, so long as official status, seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments are unaffected. [¶8, ¶9]
Is interference in administrative transfer orders beyond the realm of the power of judicial review?
Yes. Interference in administrative transfer orders is beyond the realm of the power of judicial review. Adjudication of transfer on merits is ordinarily impermissible, personal and family grievances of employees are to be considered only by the employer concerned and not by the Courts, and misplaced sympathy in the matter of administrative transfers would cause inconvenience to public administration. A writ lies only where the order is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or where mala fides are alleged. [¶4, ¶6]
Does the exercise of an option in the matter of transfer confer a right to claim the place or post?
No. The exercise of an option in the matter of transfer does not confer a right to claim the place or post. The decisions on transfers by the competent authority are binding on the employee, since transfer is a condition of service; post or place can never be claimed as a matter of right, and facilitating an employee to exercise an option would not be a ground to challenge an administrative transfer effected in the interest of public administration. [¶15]
What did the High Court finally decide on the claim for transfer to the newly formed district?
The writ petition was dismissed. In view of the settled legal position on judicial interference in administrative transfers, the petitioner had not established any right to secure the relief sought. There was no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. [¶16]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“4. Administrative transfers are incidental to service and conditions of service. When transfer is an administrative condition, ordinarily no application or writ is entertainable before the Court of Law. An application or writ against the order of administrative transfer is entertainable, if the transfer order has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala fides are raised. Even in case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the authorities against whom such allegations are raised, must be impleaded as a partyrespondent in their personal capacity.”
“6. Interference in administrative transfer orders are beyond the realm of the power of judicial review. Adjudication of transfer on merits are ordinarily impermissible. Personal / family grievances of the employees are to be considered only by the employer concerned, and not by the Courts. Misplaced sympathy by Courts in the matter of administrative transfers would cause inconvenience to the public administration.”
“8. Question arises, whether the transfer policy / guidelines will have the effect of statute and are enforceable in the eye of law. In this context, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administration guidelines cannot be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights.”
“13. Transfer guidelines are issued to avoid inconsistency while effecting transfers and to maintain transparency. These guidelines are issued enabling the competent authority to exercise their powers in a diligent manner and to eliminate unnecessary discrimination amongst the employees in the matter of transfers. Since the transfer is condition of service, transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable right to the employees. The primary purpose of issuing the guidelines is to improve transparency in the administration. Thus, it is for the convenience of the establishment and would not confer any right on the employees to claim place or post as a matter of right.”
“15. In the present case, the petitioner has given an option to transfer her to Tenkasi District. However, exercise of option by the petitioner would not confer right to claim the place or post. The decision on transfers by the competent authority are binding on the employee, since transfer is condition of service. Post or place can never be claimed as matter of right. Status cannot be claimed in public posts. Thus, facilitating an employee to exercise option in the matter of transfer would not be a ground to challenge the administrative transfer effected in the interest of public administration. However, general request transfers if made by any employee, the same may be considered by the employer in the interest of administration.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the rejection order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Principle District Judge, Tirunelveli, declining to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer her from Tirunelveli to newly bifurcated Tenkasi District. Tirunelveli District was bifurcated as Tirunelveli and Tenkasi Districts on 13.01.2024. Willingness was sought for from the staff members and some of the staff members exercised their option to secure transfer to newly formed Tenkasi District. The High Court issued instructions for the purpose of considering the option exercised by the employees. The said instructions are followed in order to minimise the inconvenience to the administration and to avoid discrimination amongst the employees to get transfer to the place of their own choice. Therefore, such instructions are issued for the purpose of facilitating the employees to get transfer to the place of their choice and cannot be construed as a Rule, so as to have an enforceable right. The instructions cannot be equated with the statute or rules.
In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Typist and posted in Ramanthapuram District. At her request, she was transferred from Ramanthapuram to Tirunelveli and joined on 07.11.2022. Her seniority in Tirunelveli District was fixed as per the terms and conditions of the request transfer order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant in Ramanathapuram District by foregoing her seniority, she joined in Tirunelveli District on her own request and she was reverted and placed in the seniority of Typists. The petitioner exercised her option on 09.09.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that her juniors, who have exercised their option to get transfer to Tenkasi District were considered. However, her case was not considered without any valid reason. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. When juniors to the petitioner were transferred and posted to Tenkasi District, the petitioner's case also should have been considered by the respondents.
Administrative transfers are incidental to service and conditions of service. When transfer is an administrative condition, ordinarily no application or writ is entertainable before the Court of Law. An application or writ against the order of administrative transfer is entertainable, if the transfer order has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala fides are raised. Even in case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the authorities against whom such allegations are raised, must be impleaded as a partyrespondent in their personal capacity.
Place or post can never be the choice of an employee. Organisational requirements and public interest are of paramount importance. Transfers are unavoidable for efficient public administration, which is a constitutional mandate. Courts cannot interfere with day-to-day administration of the Government Departments / Organisations. Such interference undoubtedly would cause prejudice to the interest of efficient administration. It is the prerogative of the Executive Authority to take decisions regarding transfer and posting of an employee in a particular place and post.
Interference in administrative transfer orders are beyond the realm of the power of judicial review. Adjudication of transfer on merits are ordinarily impermissible. Personal / family grievances of the employees are to be considered only by the employer concerned, and not by the Courts. Misplaced sympathy by Courts in the matter of administrative transfers would cause inconvenience to the public administration.
In the case of Shilpi Bose and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, the Apex Court reiterated that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons. Unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post have no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his service rights. If the Courts continue to interfere with the day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and the authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest.
Question arises, whether the transfer policy / guidelines will have the effect of statute and are enforceable in the eye of law. In this context, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administration guidelines cannot be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights.
Administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or outlining 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 or 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 as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.
Therefore, the legal position regarding judicial interference in administrative transfers had been repeatedly reiterated by the Constitutional Courts. Courts cannot run the administration and interference in administrative transfers would affect the routine administration of the Government Departments/Organisations. Therefore, the cases of transfers to be considered based on the legal position settled by the Constitutional Courts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678, held as follows:
“16. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. 17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duties from 11-10-1999 to 27-4-2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced. 18. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [(1989) 2 SCC 602 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 393 : (1989) 10 ATC 396 : AIR 1989 SC 1433] this Court had an occasion to examine the case of almost similar nature. This Court observed as under: (SCC p. 607, para 4) “4. ...… Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the public servant concerned must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other”.”
In the recent case of The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Another vs. R.Agila ETC, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.13070-13075 of 2022 dated 20 th August, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
“18. Despite there being no interim order in their favour, respondent nos.4 and 7 continued to remain absent after being relieved from their original place of posting. As such, this Court is not inclined to extend any benefit of salary for the period of unauthorised absence. However, as the transfer order was quashed by the learned Single Judge, their service periods shall continue to be treated in continuity, and they would be entitled to whatever other benefits accrued to them due to this continuity, but no salary for the said period of unauthorised absence.”
Transfer guidelines are issued to avoid inconsistency while effecting transfers and to maintain transparency. These guidelines are issued enabling the competent authority to exercise their powers in a diligent manner and to eliminate unnecessary discrimination amongst the employees in the matter of transfers. Since the transfer is condition of service, transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable right to the employees. The primary purpose of issuing the guidelines is to improve transparency in the administration. Thus, it is for the convenience of the establishment and would not confer any right on the employees to claim place or post as a matter of right.
Rule 40(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service empowers the competent authority to effect transfers. However, the said Rule would not provide any right to the employees to claim a particular post or place of their choice. No doubt, personal grievances if any placed by an employee, the same may be considered by an employer taking into consideration the interest of the public administration.
In the present case, the petitioner has given an option to transfer her to Tenkasi District. However, exercise of option by the petitioner would not confer right to claim the place or post. The decision on transfers by the competent authority are binding on the employee, since transfer is condition of service. Post or place can never be claimed as matter of right. Status cannot be claimed in public posts. Thus, facilitating an employee to exercise option in the matter of transfer would not be a ground to challenge the administrative transfer effected in the interest of public administration. However, general request transfers if made by any employee, the same may be considered by the employer in the interest of administration.
In view of the legal position as elaborated in the aforementioned paragraphs, the petitioner has not established any right to secure the relief from the hands of this Court. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.] 05.08.2025
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy