'Interference In Administrative Decisions Can't Be Done By Court': J&K HC Rejects FCI Manager's Challenge To Transfer Order
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the petition by the FCI manager challenging his transger to Uttar Pradesh.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : March 23, 2026 at 6:30 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday while upholding the transfer of a Food Corporation of India (FCI) officer to Uttar Pradesh, ruled that an employee cannot claim a vested right to be posted at a place of choice and courts have limited scope to interfere in transfer matters.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, in its 11-page order dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Gaganpreet Singh Wazir, a 38-year-old Manager (Depot) with the FCI, challenging his transfer from Jammu and Kashmir to Uttar Pradesh.
Wazir, a Category-II officer, had approached the court against a September 4, 2025 judgment of a single judge that upheld his transfer order issued in March 2025.
The petitioner, who is a government employee working in a managerial capacity with FCI, argued that his transfer was "punitive" and carried out with mala fide intent after he allegedly reported irregularities by another officer, Ajay Pal Singh (Manager G) in 2022.
He claimed that despite giving preferences for Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, he was transferred to Uttar Pradesh, where the officer against whom he had made complaints was posted.
The respondents, represented by senior counsel, argued that the transfer was made in the interest of administration and in accordance with service regulations, adding that transfer is an incidence of service.
After hearing both sides, the bench reiterated the settled legal position on transfers. "The scope of judicial review to interfere in administrative transfers is extremely limited. It is well settled that it is entirely for the competent authority to decide when and where a public servant is to be transferred," the court said.
The judges further observed, “Transfer is not only an incidence but an essential condition of service and cannot be said to adversely affect the service condition of an employee.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim of a right to a preferred posting, the court said, “No employee can claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference in administrative decisions cannot be done by the court.”
On the allegation of mala fide intent, the bench found no material to support the claims. “The appellant has made bald allegations of malice without substantiating the same by any cogent material,” the court said.
It added that mere use of the term “malice” is insufficient without specific pleadings and supporting facts. “Mere assertion or bald statements are not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes on a person levelling allegations of mala fides,” the bench observed.
The court also clarified that transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable legal rights. “No right can be claimed solely on the basis of transfer guidelines, as they do not carry any statutory force,” it said.
Dismissing the appeal, the bench held that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and found no infirmity in the earlier judgment.
“In view of the fact that the transfer of the appellant is purely on administrative grounds… we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge,” the court said.
Read More:
