[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarmanjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2026
CWP-6614-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107 CWP-6614-2026
Date of Decision: 06.03.2026
Jarmanjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.02.2026
whereby he has been transferred. He is further seeking directions to
respondent to decide his representation dated 23.02.2026.
2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 08.12.2016
in District Amritsar (Rural). He was transferred from time to time. He vide
order dated 16.02.2026 was transferred from District Amritsar (Rural) to
Ludhiana City and was relieved from Police Lines Amritsar (Rural) vide
order dated 17.02.2026 to join at Ludhiana City. He preferred representation
dated 23.02.2026 before Director General of Police, Punjab to cancel his
transfer order but to no avail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has
transferred the petitioner to settle political vendetta. The transfer has been
made in violation of transfer policy dated 23.04.2014 wherein an employee
1 of 5
cannot be transferred prior to completion of 2 years on one station. This
Court in similar situations has stayed the order of transfer.
4. Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who on
advance notice is present in Court on behalf of respondent-State, submits
that impugned order has been passed by competent authority. No mala fide
of respondents is involved. It is settled proposition of law that scope of
interference in transfer matters is very limited. It is the employer or higher
authorities who have to decide posting of employees. The Court cannot
determine place of posting of employees. The authorities, in the interest of
administration as well as public interest, has to transfer its employees.
Transfer is an integral part of service. Except bald allegations, there is no
concrete evidence disclosing that the petitioner has been transferred with
mala fide intention or there is violation of policy. The respondent-
authorities, as per need of the hour, have decided to transfer the petitioner.
The petitioner cannot claim right over present place of posting.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan and another, 2001 8 SCC 574 has
held that no Government Servant or employee of a public undertaking has
any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place 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 of power or stated to be in violation of statutory
provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot
2 of 5
interfere with such orders, as though they were the Appellate Authorities
substituting their own decision for that of the management.
7. Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11
SCC 402 has held that a Government Servant once appointed at a particular
place or position cannot continue for as long as he desires. Transfer is not
only an incident inherent in terms of the appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service. Unless order of transfer is outcome of mala
fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision, an order
of transfer cannot be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any
or every type of grievance sought to be made. A challenge to an order should
be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals.
The relevant extracts of the judgment read as under :
"7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to
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. Unless the order of transfer is shown to
be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of
any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an
authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot
lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for
any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even
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 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
3 of 5
infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of
pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated
that the order of transfer made even in transgression of
administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as
they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as
noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made
in violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be
eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or
tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such
orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative
needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for
the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own
decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent
authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides
when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court
or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be
entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration
borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong
and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be
made with an order of transfer."
8. The Apex Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2024 in Pubi
Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & others, (2024) 12 SCC 292 has
laid down parameters of interference in transfer matters. Court has held that
judicial interference in transfer matters is not warranted in absence of (i)
pleadings regarding mala fide, (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.
9. Considering the facts of the present case and judgments of
Supreme Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with order
4 of 5
dated 16.02.2026. The petition being bereft of merit deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
