State Cannot Ignore Employee Transfer Options When Vacancies Exist: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has reinforced the principle of administrative fairness, ruling that once the State invites transfer preferences from employees, it cannot arbitrarily ignore those choices if vacancies exist at the requested locations. This decision curbs the discretionary power of departments to bypass their own transparency guidelines in personnel postings without valid justification.

A single-judge bench of Justice Partha Sarthy adjudicated the writ petition filed by a Touring Veterinary Officer who challenged his transfer to a district outside his five preferred choices. The petitioner contended that the department violated its own notification, which had explicitly invited options for the sake of transparency and personnel welfare.

Court Observations on Administrative Transparency

The Court noted that while judicial review in routine transfer matters is limited under Constitution of India, the State's admission regarding vacancies at the petitioner’s preferred locations changed the complexion of the case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "No doubt, the petitioner has no legal right to be transferred and posted at a particular place, transfer being an incidence of service, however the respondents themselves having invited five options where the employee would prefer to be transferred, the petitioner having exercised the said option and there still being vacancy at three out of the five places, the respondents cannot just ignore the options exercised by the petitioner and at the same time accept that the vacancy exists."

The Court further emphasized that the Department's own instructions, aimed at transparency and uniformity, must be adhered to unless specific departmental requirements necessitate a departure. The Court has following directions:

"(i) The petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the Secretary, Department of Dairy, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry Resources, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) along with a copy of this order within a period of four weeks.

(ii) The respondent no.2 shall decide the representation of the petitioner taking into consideration the contents of letter no.3122 dated 19.6.2026 of the Dairy, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry Resources Department whereby options for place of posting was invited and the options exercised by the petitioner.

(iii) The respondent no.2 shall pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation."

Background

The petitioner was serving as a Touring Veterinary Officer (Mobile) at Aurangabad and had completed over three years at his post. Following a departmental letter dated June 19, 2026, which invited five posting choices for those completing three-year tenures, the petitioner submitted his preferences including Jehanabad, Nawada, and Rohtas.

However, the department issued a notification on June 28, 2026, transferring him to Gopalganj, a district not included in his options. The petitioner argued that three of his preferred posts remained vacant. The respondents, relying on Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar & Ors ( "AIR 1991 SC 532": 1990 CaseBase(SC) 158) and S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India & Ors ( "(2006) 9 SCC 583": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 599), argued that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is not warranted unless the order is punitive or lacks jurisdiction. The Court, while not quashing the transfer order due to the petitioner already joining the new post, directed the Secretary to reconsider the petitioner's representation in light of the available vacancies.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10029 of 2026
Case Title: Dr. Shailendra Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shrish Anurag, Advocate, Mr. Aniket Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP-24

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 3286