In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sri Pubi Lombi vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (2024 INSC 200), has delineated the boundaries of judicial review concerning transfer orders under the service law. The apex court held that judicial interference in transfer orders is unwarranted unless there is a blatant violation of statutory provisions or evidence of malafide intent.
The court underlined that non-compliance with executive instructions does not bestow a legally enforceable right upon an employee occupying a transferable position. This principle was affirmed through references to several precedents, including Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas and Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, among
Key to the court’s decision was the absence of four crucial elements in the appellant’s case: (i) any allegations of malafide intent, (ii) the non-joining of the person against whom allegations were made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision, and (iv) claims that the transfer was detrimental to an employee who holds a transferable post. Without these elements, the court found no basis for judicial intervention.
The ruling reinforces the idea that while employees can seek redress for unjust transfer orders, the grounds for such appeals are narrowly defined. The judiciary’s role is not to micromanage administrative decisions but to ensure they are made within the bounds of law and fairness.
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
