RTI for Transfer Policy and Orders

Ramesh works as a Section Officer in a Central ministry. After six years at one post, he is moved out in a transfer cycle while a colleague with only three years stays on. No reason is given in writing. His representation asking “why me and not him” sits unanswered for months. He suspects the transfer broke the published tenure rules, but he has no paper to prove it.

This is the everyday transfer problem thousands of government employees face. The good news: the transfer policy itself, the tenure rules, the transfer list, and the disposal of your own representation are records a public authority must either publish or give you under the Right to Information Act. This page shows you, step by step, how to ask for them — and how to avoid the RTI traps that get transfer applications rejected.

A transfer policy is not a secret internal note. The Central Information Commission has held, in Gopal Prasad v. CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd. (CIC/IDBIB/A/2017/162498, decided 10 December 2018), that the transfer and placement policy of a public authority must be published on its website under Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the RTI Act. Keeping it only on an intranet is not enough. The CPIO was directed to furnish the policy free of cost. The same order drew a clean line: aggregate or statistical transfer data is disclosable, while the personal details of an individual employee's transfer are protected under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is shown.

The Delhi High Court, in a 2019 ruling, confirmed that posting and transfer orders of public servants — by name and designation — are administrative records within the Section 4(1)(b) proactive-disclosure duties. Individual reasons for a specific transfer may be protected under Section 8(1)(j) only in a narrow set of cases, subject to the Section 8(2) public-interest test. Read the full reasoning on our case page: Delhi HC — posting and transfer orders are disclosable.

The Supreme Court gave the clearest word on why transfer safeguards matter in Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (2006 INSC 609, decided 22 September 2006). The Court issued binding directives for police transfers, including a Police Establishment Board to decide transfers of officers up to Deputy Superintendent of Police rank, and a minimum two-year tenure for the DGP, IG, DIG, SP and SHO. While the case is about the police, it is the leading illustration of the principle the RTI route rests on: transfers must follow a recorded framework, not whim.

Ask for these five records in one application. They are all either proactive-disclosure material or your own service record, so they sit on the safe side of the exemption line.

1. The transfer policy applicable to you. Name the policy if you know it — for Central Secretariat Service, that is the DoPT Rotational Transfer Policy. If you are in a bank or PSU, name the Officers Placement and Transfer Policy. Ask for the current notified version and any amendments.
2. Your own tenure records. Ask for the date you joined your present post, the tenure prescribed for that post under the policy, and the date your tenure ends or ended. This is your own service record, not third-party information.
3. The transfer list for the cycle. Ask for the approved transfer list or seniority list for the cycle in which you were transferred. This is an aggregate administrative record, disclosable even where individual reasons are not.
4. The exemption criteria. Ask for the grounds on which an officer is exempted from transfer in that cycle — for example, retirement proximity, or completion of half the grade tenure for a transfer-on-request. These criteria are policy, not personal data.
5. Disposal of your own representation. If you submitted a representation against the transfer, ask for the file noting and order disposing of it, and the reason recorded. A public authority cannot simply sit on your representation.

Before you file RTI, check what is already public. The Department of Personnel and Training runs a Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders page that hosts the Rotational Transfer Policy for the Central Secretariat Service and CSSS, the IAS (Cadre) Rules 1954, inter-cadre transfer guidelines, and inter-cadre transfer of All India Service officers on the ground of marriage (with clarifications dated 22 August 2012 and 25 March 2013). The official page is at dopt.gov.in/transfer-policy-and-transfer-orders.

The current DoPT Rotational Transfer Policy for CSS was revamped by O.M. No. 01/01/2025-CS.I(P) dated 08.05.2026. It groups CSS transfers into four sectoral groups with prescribed tenures: ASO 7 years, SO 7 years, Under Secretary 6 years, and Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary (in-situ) 5 years. Transfer-on-request is allowed after you complete half the grade tenure, once per grade, through eHRMS. Officers within two years of superannuation are exempt (five years for ASOs). If the authority does not relieve you within 45 days, deemed relief applies. The same tenure structure ran under the earlier policy, O.M. dated 02.11.2022, which split ministries into two groups — the predecessor to the 2026 four-group revision.

One honest note: the exact 2026 OM number and date above come from a secondary news report, not from the DoPT circulars portal PDF directly. The tenure figures are consistent across the 2022 OM and the 2026 reporting, but if you cite the 2026 OM number in a forum, verify it against the DoPT circulars portal first.

To: The Public Information Officer
    [Name of the public authority]
    [Address]

Subject: Application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005

Sir/Madam,

I seek the following information concerning my transfer order
No. [........] dated [........]:

1. The transfer/placement policy applicable to my grade and post,
   as notified and as published under Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the
   RTI Act, including all amendments in force.
2. My date of joining the present post, the tenure prescribed for
   this post under the policy, and the date my tenure ends or ended.
3. The approved transfer list/seniority list for the transfer cycle
   in which I was transferred.
4. The grounds on which an officer is exempted from transfer in
   that cycle.
5. The order and file noting disposing of my representation dated
   [........] against the transfer, and the reason recorded therein.

Fee: Rs.10 paid by [Indian Postal Order / cash against receipt /
electronic payment via rtionline.gov.in].

Place: [........]                        Signature: [........]
Date:   [........]                        Name: [........]

A few rules behind the template. Section 6(1) of the RTI Act requires a written or electronic request to the PIO. Section 6(2) forbids the authority from requiring you to give any reason for asking — so never write “because I was victimised” in the application; that gives them nothing and protects you. Section 6(3) obliges a public authority that receives a misdirected application to transfer it to the correct authority within five working days, not reject it — so if your application lands with the wrong office, the law protects you. Read the section in full at Section 6 of the RTI Act.

The fee is Rs.10 for the Central Government, prescribed by the Central RTI Rules, 2012, Rule 3(1). Accepted modes are Indian Postal Order, demand draft or banker's cheque, cash against a receipt, and electronic payment through rtionline.gov.in. Below Poverty Line applicants are exempt from all fees under Section 7(5). For the full fee schedule, see RTI application fee structure 2026. To file online instead of by post, see How to file an RTI online in India.

The most common RTI rejection in transfer cases comes from asking for another employee's reasons for being retained or transferred. That is personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j). The Supreme Court settled this in Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009, decided 31 August 2017, reported (2018) 8 SCC 1): service and transfer details of individual employees are “personal information” exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless you can show a larger public interest.

So frame your application around records and policy, not around another person. Ask for “the transfer list for the cycle” (an aggregate record) rather than “why was Mr X not transferred” (personal information). Ask for “the exemption criteria” (policy) rather than “what exception was applied to Mr X” (personal). This keeps your application on the disclosable side of the line and away from the Canara Bank exemption.

A second common mistake is skipping the representation disposal ask. Many applicants ask for the policy and tenure but forget to ask for the order on their own representation. The representation disposal is your own service record and is disclosable; without it you cannot show that the authority failed to record a reason.

If the transfer itself is arbitrary — say, it violates the published tenure or skips the exemption criteria — RTI gives you the proof, not the remedy. The remedy runs on a separate track.

1. Step 1 — Representation. Submit a written representation to the transferring authority, citing the tenure you have completed and the exemption you qualify for. Keep a dated copy.
2. Step 2 — RTI. File the RTI above to get the policy, your tenure record, the transfer list, the exemption criteria, and the disposal of your representation. This is your evidence file.
3. Step 3 — First appeal. If the PIO does not reply within 30 days, file a first appeal under Section 19(1) with the First Appellate Authority within 30 days.
4. Step 4 — Second appeal. If the first appeal fails, file a second appeal under Section 19(3) with the Central Information Commission within 90 days.
5. Step 5 — Tribunal. If you are a government servant, take the evidence you gathered through RTI to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). RTI gets you the record; CAT gets you the order setting the transfer aside.

The pattern matters: RTI is the evidence tool, CAT or the High Court is the remedy tool. A transfer challenge without the policy and tenure record on paper is a complaint; with those records, it is a case.

A transfer before the prescribed tenure is not categorically “barred.” The DoPT policy prescribes tenures of 7, 6 and 5 years and carries out transfers twice a year and on promotion or request. What it means is that a transfer before the prescribed tenure needs a recorded reason or must fall into a defined exception (promotion, request after half-tenure, retirement proximity, deemed relief, administrative exigency). So the right RTI question is not “is this illegal?” but “what authority and what exception was invoked to transfer me before my tenure?” Ask for the exception in writing. If none is on record, that gap is itself your strongest evidence before CAT.

For a related service-record RTI on the promotion side — DPC minutes, seniority, vacancy position — see RTI for DPC minutes and promotion records. For the CIC's reasoning on transfer of a subordinate court judge and the limits of judicial-transfer RTI, see CIC — RTI on transfer of a subordinate court judge.

1. Q: Can I ask why my colleague was not transferred? No. That is personal information under Section 8(1)(j) per Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam. Ask instead for the transfer list and the exemption criteria — both aggregate policy records.
2. Q: My representation was never answered. What now? File RTI asking for the file noting and order disposing of your representation. No reply within 30 days means a first appeal under Section 19(1).
3. Q: The transfer policy is on the intranet, not the website. Is that enough? No. Gopal Prasad v. IDBI Bank held that the policy must be on the public website under Section 4(1)(b)(iv); an intranet copy is insufficient.
4. Q: Do I have to say why I want the information? No. Section 6(2) forbids the authority from asking for a reason. Do not volunteer one.
5. Q: I sent the RTI to the wrong office. Will it be rejected? No. Under Section 6(3) the office must transfer it to the correct authority within five working days.

1. Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 / 2006 INSC 609, decided 22 September 2006 — LIIofIndia (http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2006/609.html)
2. Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009, decided 31 August 2017, (2018) 8 SCC 1 — indiankanoon (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140349586/)
3. Gopal Prasad v. CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd., CIC/IDBIB/A/2017/162498, decided 10 December 2018 — indiankanoon (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60460391/)
4. DoPT — Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders (https://dopt.gov.in/transfer-policy-and-transfer-orders)
5. DoPT Rotational Transfer Policy for CSS, O.M. dated 02.11.2022 — doptcirculars.nic.in (https://doptcirculars.nic.in/OM/ViewOMNew.aspx?id=301)
6. DoPT revised RTP for CSS, O.M. No. 01/01/2025-CS.I(P) dated 08.05.2026 — StaffNews, secondary (https://www.staffnews.in/2026/05/rotational-transfer-policy-rtp-for-central-secretariat-service.html)
7. Central RTI Rules, 2012, Rule 3(1) — NITI Aayog PDF (https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/RTI%20Rules%20Final%20PDF.pdf)
8. Delhi High Court — posting and transfer orders disclosable under Section 4(1)(b) — RTI Wiki case page (https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019)

Last reviewed: 4 July 2026.

If this was useful, The RTI Playbook walks you through the full lifecycle — drafting, filing, first appeal, second appeal, and using the records you get in a tribunal. It turns one-off RTI wins into a repeatable skill.

This site is independent and free. If it saved you a fee, a lawyer visit, or a wrong turn, donate to support this work so we can keep these guides open for the next person who needs them.