AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
a. Stay the operation and implementation of Order No.153-DFCS&CA-UTL of 2026 dated 24.07.2026, insofar as it entrusts the look-after charge of Tehsil Supply Officer, Zanskar to respondent No.4.
b. Direct the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the assignment of the look-after charge of Tehsil Supply Officer, Zanskar as obtaining immediately prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 24.07.2026, till the disposal of the present Original Application.
c. The Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass such other interim order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.
What stems out of the pleadings made is that in pursuance to an Order No. 04-DFCS&CA-UTL of 2026 dated 13.01.2026, the applicant was transferred from SK Enforcement, Zanskar to TSO Lungnak, and as such, the applicant joined in pursuance to his order of transfer. Thereafter, as stated, one more Order No. 66-DFCS&CA-UTL of 2026 dated 02.04.2026 came to be issued, wherein the applicant in addition to his own duties as TSO Lungnak was ordered to look after the charge of TSO Zanskar.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ruaani Ahmad Baba, submits that the applicant is aggrieved of an Order dated 24.07.2026, by virtue of which the applicant has been divested of his additional charge as TSO Zanskar, which has been ordered to be given to Sh. Lobzang Gacho, Store Keeper (private respondent).
The challenge has been thrown to the Order dated 24.07.2026 on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A. The star ground is that the charge of TSO cannot be given to a Store Keeper, as such, the order impugned is bad in law, arbitrary, illegal and suffers from complete non-application of mind. He submits that divesting the applicant of the additional charge is mala fide, as no reason has been assigned as to why the applicant has been divested of his additional charge as TSO Zanskar.
Needless to say that Courts have a very limited power to interfere in such administrative matters, particularly in matters of transfers. It is always for the competent authority to post or assign additional duties to an employee, however, in the interest of public and administration. To this effect, I am fortified by a catena of judgments:
Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;
Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532;
State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;
Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214;
Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169;
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574;
Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;
Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;
Ms. Humaira, Advocate vice Mr. Tahir Majid Shamsi, learned DSGI, for the official respondents submits that the applicant has no right to seek a posting of his choice or liking, and the order has been passed by the Director, who is the competent authority and the order is passed in an administrative exigency. She further submits that the order of assigning additional charge to the applicant of TSO Zanskar was till further orders and, since now the order impugned has been issued, the applicant has no right to seek continuation to hold the additional charge.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No good ground for indulgence is made out. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. However, the applicant is free to move a detailed representation before the respondent / competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances and, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on its merits in accordance with law.
Accordingly, O.A. No. 841/2026 is dismissed along with all connected M.A.s, if any.