Sri Arup Kumar Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/26

¶2

GAHC010140972026

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:9819

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3642/2026

¶6

SRI ARUP KUMAR SARKAR S/O LATE SUBHASH CH. SARKAR

¶7

R/O FLAT NO- 3/D, 3RD FLOOR, BLOCK-5 NEW BUILDING GAURI HOUSING, MILAN NAGAR, B.G. COLONY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI. P.O. P.S MALIGAON, JALUKBARI DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN 781011

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

¶10

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001

¶11

2:THE DG (ESTABLISHMENT) RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

¶13

RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001

¶14

4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER

¶15

NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 781011 ASSA

¶16

Page No.# 2/26

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, CHONBEN Z YANTHAN,MRS S A CHOUDHURY,MS. S DEVI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 17-07-2026

¶22

Heard Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents.

¶23

The Petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 11-06-2026, issued towards transferring and posting him from the Zonal Headquarters/N.F Railway to New Jalpaiguri, under Katihar Railway Division.

¶24

The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant SubInspector (ASI), Railway Protection Force (RPF), vide order dated 25.01.2025. It is further projected that prior to his consideration for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), Railway Protection Force (RPF), the Petitioner who was working as a Head Constable, was transferred and posted to Maligaon,

¶25

Page No.# 3/26

¶26

vide an order dated 12.03.2024, on spouse posting ground, inasmuch as, his wife, at the relevant point of time, was serving at Maligaon in the Signal and Telecommunication Department of the Railways.

¶27

3.1. As the Petitioner was continuing in his services as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), pursuant to his promotion, the competent authority of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), issued an order dated 11.06.2026, effecting transfers of the Force Members, whose names have been included in the said order, in terms of the SOP of Transfer Management Module (TMM), issued by the Railway Board, vide letter dated 25.04.2026. Such transfer is projected to have been so done after the Members of the Force, whose names have been included, therein, had completed their mandated tenure at their respective place of posting, at the time of issuance of the said order dated 11.06.2026.

¶28

3.2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the transfer effected in his case, vide order dated 11.06.2026, had approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 3188/2026. A

¶29

Page No.# 4/26

¶30

Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.06.2026,

¶31

while permitting the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, therein, to complete his instructions in the matter, had directed that the impugned order of transfer dated 11.06.2026, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, shall not be given effect to, subject to the condition that the Petitioner was not released, as on that date.

¶32

3.3. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition, along with other analogous matters, was listed on 24.06.2026. On the said date, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had received instructions from the Petitioner, that the Petitioner would approach the appropriate authority by filing a detailed representation and further prayed that upon such representation being filed, the respondents be directed to consider and dispose of the same. Basing on the said submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 24.06.2026, proceeded to dispose of the said Writ Petition by permitting the Petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), North-East Frontier Railway, within a

¶33

Page No.# 5/26

¶34

period of 3 (Three) days from the date of the order. Such representation, if so filed, was directed to be disposed of by the said authority within a period of 7 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of the same. The Coordinate Bench further protected the Petitioner from being disturbed pending consideration of his representation.

¶35

3.4. The Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 26.06.2026, before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), North-East Frontier Railway. The said representation, on being considered, was disposed of by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), North-East Frontier Railway, vide an order dated 02.07.2026, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for withdrawal of the transfer, as ordered in his case, vide the order dated 11.06.2026.

¶36

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.

¶37

Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the

¶38

Page No.# 6/26

¶39

order dated 11-06-2026 was so issued, in respect of the Petitioner, in clear violation of the guidelines set-out, vide the Directive No. 58 (Revised). He submits that the Directive No. 58 (Revised) lays down the procedure mandated to be followed by the Respondent authorities for transfer of Members of the Force. It is projected that, in terms of the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised), the annual transfer and posting of the Members of the Force, is to be completed prior to 31.03.2026. He submits that the period for completion of the process of transfer of the Members of the Force, in terms of the said Directive No. 58, is permissible to be extended for further 2 (Two) months by the Director General of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He submits that in the present case, the order of transfer was issued only on 11.06.2026, i.e. beyond the permitted time frame prescribed under the provisions of the Directive No. 58 (Revised) and accordingly, the transfer, as ordered in respect of the petitioner, being effected in violation of the provisions of Directive No. 58 (Revised), the same is void ab initio.

¶40

4.1. Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Directive No. 58 (Revised) is so framed in

¶41

Page No.# 7/26

¶42

exercise of the powers, as provided under Rules 28 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

¶43

4.2. Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the wife of the Petitioner is presently working in the Signal and Telecommunication Department, N.F Railways and is posted at its Headquarters at Maligaon and the Petitioner was posted to Maligaon, on spouse grounds only, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. Accordingly, he submits that the Petitioner had not completed the mandated tenure at Maligaon, after his such transfer, on spouse grounds. It is submitted by Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is also saddled with the responsibility of providing necessary care and attention to his elderly mother, as well as, to his daughter and accordingly, a transfer effected, at this stage, in respect of the Petitioner, would cause great inconvenience to his family members. Accordingly, he submits that there being vacant posts available in Maligaon and/or at nearby locations, the order of transfer of the Petitioner was required to be modified and the Petitioner was to be posted at Maligaon and/or locations, near to Maligaon and thereby, permit him to discharge his duties and at

¶44

Page No.# 8/26

¶45

the same time provide for the necessary care and attention required by his family members.

¶46

4.3. Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the order dated 02.07.2026, issued by the Principal, Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), North-East Frontier Railway, disposing of the representation of the Petitioner, in terms of the liberty granted by this Court, vide order dated 24.06.2026 in WP(C) No. 3188/2026, has submitted that the said authority, while proceeding to draw conclusions in the matter, had not considered the true purport of the procedure, set out in the Directive No. 58 (Revised). It is submitted that the only by drawing a conclusion to the effect that the Petitioner had served at Guwahati cluster for over 22 (Twenty-Two) years, since his appointment in the year 1998, had proceeded to reject the prayer of the Petitioner, for withdrawal of his transfer.

¶47

4.4. It is further projected that the Respondent authorities had also, with regard to the claim made by the petitioner, for continuous posting at Maligaon on spouse posting ground, has

¶48

Page No.# 9/26

¶49

held that the wife of the Petitioner would be considered for a posting to New-Jalpaiguri, i.e. the place the Petitioner has now been transferred to, in the event, a request is so made by the Petitioner and/or his wife, in this connection. He submits that the said reasons, as recorded in the impugned order dated 02.07.2024, would mandate an interference from this Court.

¶50

4.5. In the above premises, Mr. I Rofique, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.06.2026, in so far as the it concerns the transfer and posting of the Petitioner, as well as, the order dated 02.07.2026, would mandate an interference from this Court.

¶51

4.6. Per contra, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC, appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the Directive No. 58 (Revised) was issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Railway Board, in terms of the provisions of Rule 28 of the Railway Protection Force Rules (RPF), 1987. He submits that such directives are mandated to be so issued by the Director General of the force for enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Railway Protection Act, and the Rules of 1987,

¶52

Page No.# 10/26

¶53

framed, thereunder. He submits that in the Directive No. 58, it has been provided that transfer of the enrolled Members of the Railway Protection Force (PRF) is to be so effected before 31^st March of a calendar year. He submits that on ground of administrative exigency the Director General of the force was authorized to extend the said period by maximum period of 02 (two) months. In the present case, he submits that the Railway Board, had, vide a communication dated 24.03.2026, required all Zonal Railways, Principal Chief Security Commissioners, Railway Protection Force (RPF), to initiate the process of transfer and complete the same, on or before 30.03.2026. He submits that the said direction, having come from the Railway Board, the same would have to be read into the provisions of the Directive No. 58 and the time frame prescribed, therein, for issuance of the transfer order, in so far as the year 2026 is concerned, stood automatically extended till 30.03.2026. He submits that in Directive No. 58, it has been provided that the guidelines issued, thereunder, was subject to the being modified and/or superseded by by the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Railway Board to meet administrative exigencies in future.

¶54

Page No.# 11/26

¶55

Accordingly, he submits that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the transfer effected, in respect of the Petitioner, vide order dated 11.06.2026, being issued beyond the time frame prescribed in the guidelines formulated under Directive No. 58, to not mandate acceptance from this Court.

¶56

5.1. Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents has, thereafter, submitted that it was found, while processing the matter for the annual transfer, that the Petitioner had remained posted at Guwahati cluster for over 22 (twenty-two) years, since, his enrollment in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in the year 1998. He submits that the Petitioner, was transferred from Rangia to N.F Railway Headquarters at Maligaon, vide an order dated 12.03.2024, on spouse ground. However, it was found that the said order issued, was in clear violation of the provisions of sub-clause (v) and (vii) of Clause D of the said Directive No. 58. Accordingly, he submits that the transfer and posting of the Petitioner to Katihar, is in the administrative exigencies of the Force and the same is in terms of the procedure mandated to be followed in connection with the annual transfers of Members of the Force who have completed their respective tenures at their

¶57

Page No.# 12/26

¶58

place of posting, when such consideration of their cases for transfer is undertaken.

¶59

5.2. Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents further submits that the one of the intentions behind issuance of the guidelines, under Directive No. 58, is to ensure that all Members, on completion of their normal tenure should be transferred in a way that everybody gets an opportunity to work in several spheres of the Force and accordingly, for the said purpose, an ICT application named “Transfer Management Module” or “TMM”, was designed and developed and made available to all competent authorities. Accordingly, he submits that the Petitioner, admittedly having remained at Guwahati beyond the permissible tenure, the transfer as ordered in his case, vide the order dated 11.06.2026, would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶60

5.3. Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the respondent authorities had disposed of the representation submitted in the matter vide issuance of an order dated 02-02-2026. He submits that a perusal of the order

¶61

Page No.# 13/26

¶62

dated 02-07-2026 would reveal the all grounds urged by the petitioner in his representation were duly considered by the authorities. He further submits that the petitioner in the present proceeding has not alleged any of the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities in the order dated 02-07-2026 to be perverse. By referring to Clause (K) of the order dated 02-072026, Mr. Kaushik submits that the Petitioner upon joining his transferred place of posting, has been granted the liberty to apply for premature transfer through Transfer Management Module (TMM), once it becomes operational. Accordingly, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents submits that the grievance of the Petitioner would again be permissible to be considered by the Respondent authorities, after the Transfer Management Module (TMM) is made operational and the Petitioner submits a representation, in this connection.

¶63

5.4. In the above premises, Mr. B Kaushik, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents, submits that the present Writ Petition would be mandated to be dismissed, in limine.

¶64

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused

¶65

Page No.# 14/26

¶66

the materials available on record.

¶67

The basic facts pertaining to the posting of the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner was vide order dated 12-03-2024, while working at Rangia was transferred and posted to Maligaon, Guwahati on the ground of spouse posting, inasmuch as, his wife at the relevant point of time was working with the Railway authority in its Signal and Telecommunication Department and was posted at Maligaon. Thereafter, the petitioner was vide the impugned order dated 11-06-2026 in pursuance to the process of annual transfer exercise carried out by the force authorities transferred and posted from Maligaon to New Jalpaiguri under Katihar Division.

¶68

The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the transfer and posting in case of the petitioner vide order dated 11-06-2026, on the following grounds:

¶69

(i) The transfer was so effected in violation of the provisions of Directive No. 58, which lays down the guidelines for transfer and posting of members of the force. The specific violation as alleged is that the transfer and posting as ordered in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 11-06-2026, was so ordered beyond the timeframe prescribed in the said Directive No. 58,

¶70

Page No.# 15/26

¶71

i.e. beyond 31^st March of the calendar year in question.

¶72

(ii) The second ground of challenge of the petitioner is that the petitioner having been granted a spouse posting only vide order dated 12-03-2024, the spouse posting being also contemplated under the provisions of the Directive No. 58, he having not completed his tenure after such posting at Maligaon, he was not to be subjected to the further transfer in the annual transfer exercise as effected vide the impugned order dated 11-06-2026.

¶73

(iii) The petitioner has further assailed the order of transfer on the ground that the choice places of posting as given by him were not considered by the respondent authorities while issuing the order dated 11-06-2026.

¶74

This Court at the outset consider the challenge made to the impugned order of transfer on the ground of violation of Directive No. 58 (revised) laying down the guidelines for transfer and posting of the members of the Railway Protection Force. The transfer and posting of the members of the force is governed by the provision of Rule 90 to 93 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time. For the purpose of laying down the guidelines for effecting such transfers, the competent authority by invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the said Rules of 1987, issued

¶75

Page No.# 16/26

¶76

Directive No. 58 laying down guidelines, in which transfer and posting of the members of the force would be so regulated.

¶77

Rule 28 of the Rules of 1987 empowers the Director General of the force to issue from time to time such directions in form of directives relating to enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Act and Rules, as he may think necessary and the superior officers and enrolled members of the force shall be governed by such directives in the performance and discharge of their duties.

¶78

As noticed hereinabove the guidelines as formulated under Directive No. 58 (revised) was so formulated by invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1987. The provisions of SubClause- (XVII) of Clause- D of the said Directive No. 58, lays down that annual periodical transfer shall ideally be processed and completed on or before 31^st March of every calendar year so that the officers and staff so affected could get sufficient time to plan for settling of their families and admission of their wards, as the case may be. It is further provided that on account of administrative exigencies, the Director General of force may extend the deadline by a maximum period of two months i.e. till the end of May of the

¶79

Page No.# 17/26

¶80

calendar year. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer and posting ordered in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 11-06-2026, being so ordered beyond the timeframe as stipulated in the Directive No. 58, the said order of transfer and posting in respect of the petitioner would be void ab initio.

¶81

This Court has carefully perused the various provisions made in the Directive No. 58 (revised) and finds that, therein, the Director General has also been authorized to withdraw, modify or supersede the guidelines to meet administrative exigencies in future. The respondents have projected that in view of the development of a Transfer Management Module, vide communication dated 10-022006, all Zonal authorities were informed about the same and it was also required that prior to finalization of the said module, all requisite background data be prepared and all prescribed procedures be completed at the Zonal/ Divisional level strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in Directive No. 58 (revised). It was also informed that no transfer order be issued manually till instructions are conveyed from the Railway Board in this connection.

¶82

The said module being completed, the Railway Board vide

¶83

Page No.# 18/26

¶84

communication dated 24-03-2026, informed all concerned that the

¶85

exercise with regard to tenure transfer/ promotion process shall be now completed by 30-06-2026, including issuance of transfer orders, relieving of personnel etc. It is in the said background that the impugned order of transfer was so issued 11-06-2026. The extension of time for issuance of orders of transfer and posting in terms of the provisions of Directive No. 58, having been so extended by the Railway Board, the provisions of Directive No. 58 with regard to prescription, therein, for the period for completion of exercise of transfer and posting is to be deemed to have been extended, insofar as, the said exercise is so carried out for the year 2026.

¶86

In view of the above position coming on record, this Court is of the considered view that the order of transfer dated 11-06-2026, so issued in respect of the petitioner, herein, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, is to be deemed to have been so issued within the period now extended by the Railway Board. The Railway Board being competent to issue such directions modifying the provisions of Directive No. 58 (revised), the same is required now to be complied by the petitioner and the challenge presented to the order dated 1106-2026 on the ground that the same was so issued in violation of

¶87

Page No.# 19/26

¶88

the period so mandated originally in the Directive No. 58 (revised) must necessarily fail. Accordingly, the challenge as presented by the petitioner to the order dated 11-06-2026 on the ground that the same was so issued beyond the period as originally mandated in the provisions of Clause D(XVII) of the Directive No. 58 (revised), would not mandate an acceptance from this Court.

¶89

Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the challenge presented to the order dated 11-06-2026 on the ground that the same was so issued without ignoring the right of the petitioner to continue at Maligaon on spouse posting grounds, inasmuch as, he was transferred on the said ground to Maligaon only vide an order dated 12-05-2024. The said ground as urged by the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent authorities in the order dated 02-07-2026 issued towards disposal of the representation preferred by the petitioner against the order of transfer dated 11-06-2026. The respondent authorities in the order dated 02-07-2026, have brought on record the fact that the petitioner had after his enrolment in the force in the year 1998 served against posts within Guwahati Cluster for 22 (twenty two) years. It is further projected that in view of the fact that the

¶90

Page No.# 20/26

¶91

petitioner had already served for 22 years against posts within Guwahati Cluster, he was not entitled for further continuance against a post within Guwahati Cluster and in terms of the provisions of para D(V & VII) of the Directive No. 58 which stipulates that enrolled member of the force who has completed 10 (ten) years of service in a continuous spell or 15 years in a broken spell at a station would be required to be transferred in the periodical transfer exercise, out of such station. Accordingly, the ground urged by the petitioner in the present writ petition for his retention at Maligaon on spouse posting in the considered view of this Court would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, the petitioner is found to have remained either in one stretch and/ or in a broken spell in a post within Guwahati cluster for a period of around 22 years, which is beyond the period mandated for such posting in respect of a enrolled member of the force vide Directive No. 58 (revised). The respondents in the order dated 02-07-2026 have stipulated that in the event a request is so made, either by the petitioner and/ or his spouse, his spouse can be transferred and posted to the station to which the petitioner is presently posted, inasmuch as, there are number of officers/ units of the Signal and Telecommunication

¶92

Page No.# 21/26

¶93

Department situated therein.

¶94

The petitioner in this connection has also highlighted that he is required to provide care and attention to his mother who is suffering from old age ailments and also to his daughter. The said aspect of the matter was also duly considered by the respondent authorities in the order dated 02-07-2026. With regard to the submissions made by the petitioner with regard to the care required to be provided to the daughter of the petitioner, it was held that the daughter of the petitioner was studying in Class-VII and the exemption from transfer under the provisions of the Directive No. 58, being permissible to be extended to a member of the enrolled force, only in the event the ward of such enrolled member is studying in Class-X or Class-XII, the plea raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition with regard to the care and attention required to be provided to his daughter would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. With regard to the plea taken that the petitioner is required to provide attention to his widowed mother who is suffering from old age ailments, it is seen that the petitioner in his representation preferred by him on 26-06-2026 has not disclosed the nature of ailments suffered by his mother and as to why he is required to remain near

¶95

Page No.# 22/26

¶96

his mother to provide the care and attention required.

¶97

The pleas taken by the petitioner in the matter is found to be pleas of personal hardship. While the pleas are not doubted, the same is found by this Court to essentially fall within the administrative domain. Such grounds may constitute a basis for making a representation before the competent authority requesting reconsideration or deferment of the transfer in accordance with the applicable policy, but do not by themselves render the transfer order illegal or without jurisdiction so as to warrant an interference by this Court.

¶98

This Court would now consider the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the retention of the petitioner at Maligaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had given options for being posted at Maligaon or nearby places so as to comply with the spouse posting requirement and also to facilitate the petitioner to provide the required care and attention to his mother and his daughter. The said ground was duly considered by the respondent authorities in the order dated 02-072026 and the authorities having found that the petitioner had served

¶99

Page No.# 23/26

¶100

for more than 22 years in Guwahati cluster and the options of posting as submitted being against a post located within Guwahati cluster and/ or nearby places, the said option, in view of the provisions existing in this connection in the Directive No. 58 (revised), was on consideration rejected. It was held that the petitioner, in view of his long stay against a post(s) in Guwahati cluster he was not permitted to project any post within Guwahati cluster as his option for posting during the annual exercise of transfer so carried out in the matter.

¶101

Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court holds that the transfer is an incident of service. No employee has a vested right to be posted at a place of his choice or to continue indefinitely in one station. The petitioner being an enrolled member of a disciplined force, by the very nature of his employment is liable to be transferred from one place of another in the interest of the force. This Court would not sit on appeal on the order(s) of transfer which are essentially matters within the administrative discretion of the competent authority. Judicial review in such matters is confined only to examining whether the order is vitiated by malafides or was so issued in contravention of any statutory rule or policy or has been

¶102

Page No.# 24/26

¶103

passed by an authority not competent to do so. In the absence of any such infirmity being projected and established, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the transfer order(s). The petitioner in the present writ petition has not also placed any material on record to demonstrate that the transfer ordered in his case by the impugned order dated 11-06-2026 has been so issued with an oblique motive, as a measure of victimization or was so issued in a colourable exercise of powers. In absence of any such foundation laid by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the order dated 1106-2026, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner, herein, cannot be said to have been vitiated.

¶104

This Court is of the further view that for the efficient functioning and discipline of the force of this nature, it is mandated that its members remained amenable to posting and transfer as determined by the competent authority of the force. Individual preference for a particular posting must yield to the larger operational and public interest. This Court further finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated about infringement of any legal or fundamental right on account of transfer effected in his case vide the impugned order dated 11-06-2026. Mere inconvenience or hardship, however,

¶105

Page No.# 25/26

¶106

genuine at a personal level would not translate into a legal right enforceable through an approach to this Court.

¶107

In view of the above discussion for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or malafide in the impugned order of transfer dated 11-06-2026, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the transfer and posting ordered in respect of the petitioner vide the order dated 11-06-2026.

¶108

At this stage, this Court notices that the respondent authorities in the order dated 02-07-2026 have provided liberty to the petitioner to apply for premature transfer through the TMM module when the same is made operational. The petitioner on joining his transferred place of posting would be at liberty to apply for a premature transfer through TMM module when the same is made operational. In the event of submission of such application, the same would be considered by the authorities strictly in accordance with the provisions of Directive No. 58 (revised).

¶109