The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of malice or arbitrariness; mere general grounds or comparisons with others do not justify interference. The decision upholds well-established principles, providing binding precedent for transfer matters within service law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/20108/2025 of ANIRBAN CHAKRABORTY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0406002025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding Precedent for subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Constitutional Law (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Scope of judicial review in matters of administrative transfer of judicial staff |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; serves as persuasive precedent on scope of judicial review in transfer cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that transfers are matters of executive discretion; judicial review under Article 226 is available only for malice or arbitrariness.
- General or common grounds for transfer cannot be the basis for judicial interference.
- Comparisons with other employees’ transfers, unless challenged specifically, are insufficient to support a writ.
- A short tenure at the transferred post (e.g., under a year) does not by itself justify reconsideration of transfer orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s request for re-transfer, which was based on general grounds and on the example of two other colleagues allegedly re-transferred.
- It reiterated the well-established principle that transfer is an incident of service, based on administrative requirements, and squarely within the employer’s discretion.
- Judicial review under Article 226 is available only in cases of alleged malice, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions—which were not demonstrated in this case.
- The Court distinguished between special circumstances justifying intervention and the present common/general grounds, holding the latter insufficient.
- It noted that the tenure of transfer was usually three years; the petitioner having been transferred about seven months prior could not seek retransfer so soon.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a direction to reconsider the transfer, having applied for intra-district transfer.
- Argued that other employees (serial nos. 10 and 11) in the transfer list were re-transferred, implying unequal treatment.
Respondent (District Judiciary)
- Submitted that petitioner was transferred from Alipore to Kakdwip about eight months earlier as an administrative measure.
- Pointed out the official rejection dated May 16, 2025, based on unsatisfactory fulfillment of relevant provisions and performance records.
- Emphasized that petitioner’s comparison with others’ transfers could not be a ground for relief.
State
Appearance entered, no further arguments detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner was serving as a Stenographer with the district judiciary. He was transferred from Alipore to Kakdwip in February 2025 through an administrative order. In August 2025, he sought another intra-district transfer, which was declined by the Registrar (Judicial Service), citing performance and administrative reasons. The petitioner argued that other colleagues in similar circumstances were re-transferred, but had not challenged those transfers.
Statutory Analysis
The Court interpreted Article 226 of the Constitution of India, confirming that writ courts cannot interfere in administrative transfers except for cases manifesting mala fide or arbitrary action. Transfer policies and tenure were considered but not judicially expanded or “read down”; nor were any additional statutory interpretations rendered.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established legal principle regarding limited judicial review on administrative transfers.