The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:

"the scope of interference with an order of transfer by a Writ Court is absolutely limited to the extent that unless there is any violation of the statutory rules or mala fide which is manifestly apparent, this Court would be loath to interfere to such order of transfer. It further transpires that though the transfer order was of 24.12.2025, the petitioner, in the meantime had sufficient time. This Court is of the opinion that the grounds cited may not be sufficient to interfere with an order of transfer which is an incidence of service. This Court is accordingly not inclined to accept the contentions advanced in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed". 

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a serving ASI/GD at CRPF praying to set aside the impugned transfer order dated December 24, 2025 which was sought to be effectuating by April 1, 2026.

It was further prayed that the respondents shall be restrained from effectuating routine transfer of the petitioner in view of the fact that he is the sole care giver to his ailing wife and his daughter.

The grievance of the petitioner was against an order of transfer dated December 24, 2025 whereby he was transferred to the 231 Battalion in the State of Chhattisgarh.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are severe hardships faced by the petitioner including an anxiety disorder of his wife. It was further submitted that at the time of presenting the writ petition, there was another ground that his daughter was preparing for her NEET examination which however, is over by now.

It was argued that there is no proper consideration to the difficulties expressed by the petitioner as highlighted in the petition as well as the representations.

The CGC appearing for the respondents submitted that the scope of challenging an order of transfer is absolutely limited and unless there is mala fide involved or violation of the statutory rules, such orders of transfer are not liable to be interfered by the Court. It was argued that

The Court noted that though the transfer order was of December 24, 2025, the petitioner, in the meantime had sufficient time.

However, the Court directed the authorities to permit the petitioner a further period of 15 days to make the movement.

“It is needless to state that the petitioner be afforded reasonable opportunity for treatment of his wife for the ailment which has been projected in the writ petition at his new place of posting,” the Court said.

The plea was disposed of.