Is an order of transfer made on administrative grounds open to interference in judicial review, and on what grounds?

Only on limited grounds. A transfer effected on administrative grounds is an incidence of service and a condition of service and, ordinarily, cannot be interfered with by a Court in exercise of its power of judicial review unless the transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or statutory violation. An employee has no vested right to insist upon a particular place or post of posting, the choice of place of posting being primarily within the domain of the administration, and personal grievances of an employee cannot by themselves be a ground for interference.

Service Law — Administrative transfer — Incidence of service — Malice in fact and malice in law — Judicial review — Service Law — Administrative transfer — Incidence of service — No vested right to a place of posting — Held: An administrative transfer is an incidence of service and a condition of service, and no employee has a vested right to insist upon a particular place or post of posting; the choice of posting lies within the domain of the administration. (¶8) Service Law — Administrative transfer — Judicial review — Mala fides, arbitrariness or statutory violation — Held further: A transfer effected on administrative grounds is not open to interference in judicial review unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or statutory violation; a personal grievance of the employee is no ground. (¶8) Service Law — Punitive transfer — Complaint against an employee — Not by itself punishment — Held further: A transfer effected pursuant to a complaint against an employee cannot by itself be construed as punitive; the administration may act bona fide to maintain discipline and a conducive atmosphere in the institution. (¶7, ¶13) Service Law — Mala fides — Pleading and proof — General allegation insufficient — Held further: An allegation of mala fides is general and unsustainable where no individual is impleaded in personal capacity and the petitioner does not demonstrate whether malice in fact or malice in law is asserted. Writ Petition dismissed. (¶13, ¶14)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kandhan Karunai.V v. Directorate of Medical Education — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India