In Brief
An Assistant Commissioner of Customs challenged his transfer from Mumbai to Bhubaneshwar before the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the High Court. The High Court admitted the petition and continued a stay, citing the employee's family hardship (spouse's cardiac treatment in Mumbai) and the retention of headquarters. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded jurisdiction by interfering with a lawful transfer order without finding mala fides or breach of law. Personal hardship and medical grounds are not valid bases for invoking Article 226. The Court vacated the stay and allowed the appeal, holding that employees have no right to demand posting at a place of preference and courts cannot dictate to employers on administrative matters.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.