High Court sets aside Tribunal's decision, upholds transfer order emphasizing administrative discretion.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and dismissing the respondent's Original Application. The Court upheld the Department's transfer order, emphasizing administrative exigency and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The decision underscores the principle that transfer policies and guidelines, while important, do not override administrative discretion unless statutory provisions are violated or transfers are mala fide.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer order dated 14.08.2019.
2. Application of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines regarding officers nearing superannuation.
3. Tribunal's jurisdiction and scope of judicial review in transfer matters.
4. Allegations of discrimination and violation of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer Order Dated 14.08.2019:
The transfer order dated 14.08.2019, challenged by the respondent, was issued as part of an Annual General Transfer overdue due to pending litigation (WP(C) No. 58 of 2019). The respondent argued that the transfer breached the New Transfer Policy dated 05.03.2015, which mandates transfers to be completed by 31st October each year. The Department contended the transfer was in administrative exigencies and routine, affecting 94 officers, not just the respondent. The High Court noted that the transfer was delayed due to the pending litigation and was part of a larger administrative necessity.

2. Application of DoPT Guidelines Regarding Officers Nearing Superannuation:
The respondent, aged 57 years and 8 months at the time of transfer, cited DoPT guidelines stating officers with 2 years or less from superannuation should be given their desired posting. The Tribunal initially supported this view, emphasizing the welfare objective behind such guidelines. However, the High Court clarified that since the respondent had over 2 years and 9 months before retirement, the guidelines did not apply. The High Court emphasized that while guidelines should be considered, they do not confer a legally enforceable right.

3. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Scope of Judicial Review in Transfer Matters:
The High Court scrutinized the Tribunal's jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that transfer orders are an incident of service and generally not subject to judicial interference unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations. The High Court cited several precedents, including Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, reinforcing that judicial review in transfer matters is limited. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by quashing the transfer order based on non-statutory guidelines.

4. Allegations of Discrimination and Violation of Natural Justice:
The respondent alleged discrimination, claiming other officers were favorably adjusted. However, the High Court found no such pleadings before the Tribunal and noted the respondent's long tenure in Shillong, undermining the discrimination claim. The High Court reiterated that transfer is an administrative matter, and citing examples of others does not establish a right to a particular posting. The High Court dismissed the argument of discrimination, emphasizing the respondent's extensive service in the same location.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and dismissing the respondent's Original Application. The Court upheld the Department's transfer order, emphasizing administrative exigency and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The decision underscores the principle that transfer policies and guidelines, while important, do not override administrative discretion unless statutory provisions are violated or transfers are mala fide.

---