Calcutta High Court - Port Blair
Shri Kanhaya Lal Prasad vs The Andaman And Nicobar Administration ... on 13 January, 2026
2026:CHC-PB:2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]
********
PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
WPA/3/2026
Shri Kanhaya Lal Prasad
Vs
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration & others
For the petitioner : Mr. Arul Prasanth
For the respondents : Ms. Babita Das
Heard on : 13.01.2026
Judgment on : 13.01.2026
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
(oral)
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 whereby the petitioner who is admittedly a Group B employee of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration has been transferred from Rangat to Kamorta.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration dated 30th July, 2007 on several counts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present petition is maintainable before this Court in view of the latest judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2 2026:CHC-PB:2 Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India and another, Writ petition (C) No. 1018 of 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court also entertained a service matter in view of the Madras Bar Association (supra) case in WPA/596/2025 and passed a detailed order dated 19.12.2025 on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA/613/2025 titled as Smt. S. Ranju vs. The Chief Secretary and others dated 18.12.2025, whereby the service matter has been entertained by this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
4. Further learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court of an order passed by the Division Bench in WP.CT/67/2023 dated 14.12.2023 wherein the Clause 7 of the transfer policy dated 30th July, 2007 was under challenge and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the transfer order issued by the Administration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the transfer order on the following grounds.
i) As per Clause 2 of the Transfer policy the tenure of posting of Group A and B employee in Zone D which includes Kamorta is two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 2026:CHC-PB:2 submits that the petitioner has already served for more than four years and six months in Zone D as reflected from the office order No. 998 dated 13th June, 2018;
ii) As per Clause 6 of para 4 the official having less than two years of service left shall be allowed posting of his/her choice and should not be transferred from that post within that period, unless there are compelling administrative exigencies. In the present case the petitioner has left with service of only one year and eleven months;
iii) Clause 11 of para 4 provides that posting of husband and wife will preferably be made at the same station, if the service conditions permits. Learned counsel submits that the wife of the petitioner is posted at Rangat as a Teacher under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration;
iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per para 7 the transfer orders have to be issued between the period from 15th April to 15th June of each year except in the exceptional circumstances. The transfer order in the present case was issued on 17th December, 2025. Learned counsel submits that the transfer orders issued beyond the calendar was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in WP.CT/67/2023;
4
2026:CHC-PB:2
v) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as being held by Apex Court order in SK Nausad Rahaman & Others vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022, if transfer orders are in violation of the basic rights the same should be set aside by the Courts; and
vi) Learned counsels submits that the petitioner's daughter marriage is to take place within six months and it will be very difficult for the petitioner to arrange for the marriage functions being posted in the Zone D i.e. Kamorta.
6. Learned counsel therefore submits that the petition may be entertained and an interim order may be passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the Administration from implementing the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel for the Administration has vehemently opposed the writ petition predominately on the ground of maintainability. Learned counsel further submitted that vide impugned order the petitioner had been transferred on promotion. Learned counsel for the opposite party on instruction states that the petitioner has been transferred to Kamorta in view of the Great Nicobar Project taking into account the administrative exigencies. However, admittedly no record had been placed in this regard. 5
2026:CHC-PB:2
8. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner has reemphasized the observations made by the Apex Court in Madras Bar Association wherein Apex Court while dealing with the challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 issued the directions to the Union of India to establish a National Tribunal Commission regarding the selection of the Chairman and members of the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was quashed by the Apex Court. Learned counsel submits that since National Tribunal Commission has not been constituted so far, therefore, all the Tribunals have lost their right to function.
9. Pursuant to hearing in detail the learned counsel for the parties the Court is confronted predominantly with the two propositions, firstly the maintainability of the present petition and secondly the issue as to the challenge of the transfer order.
10. Before coming to the maintainability it is a settled preposition that transfer is an incidental to the service conditions. An employee cannot challenge a transfer order unless and until the same is motivated by any mala fide, perversity, arbitrariness or violation of statutory rules. It is also a settled proposition that such mala fide, perversity or arbitrariness has to be specifically pleaded. It is also pertinent to mention that an employee does not have an indefeasible right 6 2026:CHC-PB:2 to get transferred, nor can the transfer order be challenged on the grounds of personal inconvenience. Reliance can be placed upon Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and another (1993) 1 SCC 148. Vardha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others (1986) 4 SCC 13. The petitioner has not pleaded any such mala fide, perversity or arbitrariness in the entire writ petition.
11. The Constitutional Courts have time and again laid down a preposition that the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition though a wide jurisdiction, but has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is a settled proposition that if there is an equally efficacious remedy available, the Constitutional Courts must be very slow in entertaining the writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that Jurisdictional Central Administrative Tribunal is not functioning. The Apex Court in Union of India Vs. T.R.Varma, 1957 SCC Online SC 30 inter alia held that if an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available, High Court should be slow in invoking its Writ Jurisdiction.
12. The legislature in its wisdom has promulgated the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, where in under Section 15 all the service matters relating to the State Government employee have been vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal. Similarly Section 28 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of 7 2026:CHC-PB:2 the High Court in entertaining any petition relating to the service matters.
13. The directions of the Apex Court in Madras Bar Association (Supra) have been made regarding the constitution of the National Tribunal Commission, while quashing the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and thus are not germane to the present case, as it cannot be said that the Central Administrative Tribunal has become functus officio.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain that what was the difficulty for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In regard to the issues raised regarding the challenge to the circular, this Court is of the view that it may restrain itself to return any finding, as it may prejudice the petitioner, if this order is challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The orders of the co-ordinate Benches are respectfully distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench passed the order, while hearing a challenge against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus the petition being not maintainable is dismissed.
15. Needless to say all the contentions have been left open and this will not prevent the petitioner from invoking the 8 2026:CHC-PB:2 jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the law.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)