AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member
The applicant, a Senior Administrative Assistant (Upper Division Clerk) in the Military Engineer Service, presently working in the office of the 5th respondent, is aggrieved by his transfer to the office of the Garrison Engineer (Air Force) Amla in Madhya Pradesh. The applicant submits that he had entered service as an Assistant Accountant in Embarkation Headquarters, Mumbai on 16.09.2013 and later came to Military Engineer Services on Inter Departmental Transfer on compassionate grounds to look after his ailing father. He joined the Military Engineer Services on 13.9.2021 at Garrison Engineer (Project), Kochi and subsequently transferred to the office of the 5th respondent on local tenure turn over as per Order No.20060/3292/EIB(S) dated 30.06.2023.
The applicant submits that as a prelude to the transfer, warning instruction for tenure turn over posting was received at the office of the applicant on 21.12.2024. Immediately, the applicant submitted a representation pointing out the circumstances under which he joined the Military Engineer Services sacrificing his career prospects in Embarkation Headquarters Mumbai and seeking retention at Kochi or a posting at the office of the Garrison Engineer Seabird Karwar, which was forwarded by 4th respondent (Annexure A-3 dated 31.01.2025). He was issued with Annexure A-1 transfer order dated 17.02.2025 Aggrieved by his transfer to Amla, the applicant submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 21.2.2025 seeking cancellation of the transfer order or a change of posting to Karwar (Annexure A-4). Annexure A-4 representation was however, rejected by the 3rd respondent by letter dated 2.4.2025 stating that posting has been issued as per the policy in vogue and it cannot be cancelled or withheld on the ground of sickness of his father. It was also made clear that he has been posted to GE(AF), Amla in organization interest due to non-availability of vacancy of his only opted choice station at Karwar. Cancellation of posting as requested by him at this stage will hamper rotation of other staff at the new duty station and will adversely contribute man-management issues.
The applicant submitted another representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure A-5), which was rejected by Annexure A-6 order. Thereafter, another representation dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure A-7) was submitted which was also rejected by Annexure A-9 order dated 03.06.2025.
The applicant contends that the transfer guidelines (Annexure A-2) have to be understood and implemented on a case to case basis and not quite routinely. A person already in MES getting a compassionate posting and thereafter on completion of tenure, getting transferred elsewhere, is entirely different from a case like the present one. Here, the applicant's transfer on compassinate grounds was inter departmental, after both departments getting satisfied of the necessity of such a transfer. In such a case, merely on the ground that he had completed the tenure at the present station, he cannot be transferred to a far off place completely overlooking his personal grounds.
Aggrieved by Annexure A-1 transfer order and Annexures- A-5, A-6 and A-9 orders rejected his representations, the applicant has filed this Original Application and sought the following reliefs:-
(i)To quash Annexure A-1 to the extent it relates to the applicant
(ii)To quash Annexure A-5, Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-9
(iii)To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue to work at his present place of posting or in the alternative to consider him for a posting to a nearby station like Karwar
Respondents filed reply statement and contended that that Annexure A-1 is a tenure turn over posting order. The tenure turnover posting issued to the applicant is a mandatory and routine administrative requirement, implemented strictly in accordance with the extant rules and policies (Annexure A-2). The grounds raised by the applicant, particularly personal inconvenience, are not valid grounds to contest such a transfer. Tenure turnover posting refers to the administrative practice of transferring personnel upon completion of a fixed period (tenure) in a particular post, station, or assignment. Such policies are a part of well-established service jurisprudence and are implemented in accordance with the principles of good governance. Further the Tenure turnover postings are not optional or subject to personal preference. Therefore, such postings are non-discriminatory, rule based and binding in nature. They apply uniformly to all similarly situated personnel and no individual exception can be made merely on the basis of personal hardship or preference, unless specifically permitted by the rules under exceptional circumstances.
The respondents contend that the applicant's primary ground for challenging the tenure turnover posting appears to be personal inconvenience or hardship, which is not a legally valid ground to interfere with a routine and mandatory administrative action. Every subordinate staff has to fulfill their tenure liability as per their seniority in the peace stations/complexes. Accordingly, applicant was due for tenure turnover posting and as per his service profile, applicant's posting was considered by the Board of Officers and applicant was posted from Assistant Garrison Engineer (I) R & D Kochi to GE (Air Force) Amla due to non availability of vacancy at Karwar at that point of time of posting order. The transfer was necessitated to meet the urgent functional requirement at the new location. The Applicant has completed the prescribed tenure at the present station/post as per the transfer guidelines.
The applicant had already completed his local tenure at the office of the 5th respondent, having joined there on 12.01.2024, following his earlier posting at Garrison Engineer (Project), Kochi on 13.09.2021. As per policy, his transfer was due and necessary to facilitate movement of personnel and avoid overstay beyond the prescribed tenure at a particular station. The impugned posting to Garrison Engineer (Air Force), Amla was made based on a centralized assessment of vacancies, cadre strength, and operational needs. The decision was not motivated by any mala fide intention and was not targeted against the applicant.
As a Central Government servant, the applicant is liable to serve anywhere in India or under the control of the Government, as per the terms of appointment and service rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently upheld the right of the Government to transfer employees in public interest unless proven to be arbitrary, malafide, or in violation of binding norms. Absolutely there is no malafide, violations of rules or procedural impropriety in Annexure A-1 order.
Respondents further plead that while the applicant had submitted representations seeking retention at Kochi or posting to Karwar on compassionate grounds, such representations were duly considered. However, compassionate grounds cannot be the sole basis to override the functional requirements of the department, particularly when the applicant had already availed a prior transfer into the department on compassionate grounds. The applicant's earlier inter-departmental transfer into the Military Engineer Services on compassionate grounds was favorably considered and granted, leading to his posting at Kochi. It is, however, not reasonable or feasible to allow continued retention at the same station indefinitely, as it would defeat the purpose of a tenure-based rotational policy applicable uniformly to all similarly placed employees.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402] that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer is limited and that courts/tribunals should not interfere with administrative transfers made in the interest of service. In light of the above, the Annexure A-1 transfer order is just, proper, and within the administrative domain of the competent authority. There was no vacancy at Karwar at that point of time and therefore, no one has been posted to Karwar in the Tenure Turnover Posting Feb-2025 in SAA category.
The respondents further submit that the second representation dated 07.04.2025 received from the applicant vide Chief Engineer R&D Secunderabad letter No.10028/A/TTP/206/E1B(S) dated 22.04.2025 for seeking either cancel or a change of posting to Karwar/ Ratnagiri/Karanja and the same was disposed off vide HQ letter No.132402/Fe-2025/SAA/32/E1B(S)/A2 dated 03.05.2025.
Applicant's posting has been issued by the competent authority through a Board of Officers after following fair & transparent method as per Posting Guidelines laid down by the department and as per the vacancy state at that point of time. Applicant is a Govt. employee with All India Service Liability. Posting to a specific appointment or specific station shall not be a matter of right but is based on organizational requirement.
Shri R. Sreeraj, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Gouri Balagopal representing Shri M.N. Manmadan, learned SCGSC, were heard at length on 05.08.2026. Perused the records.
Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded strongly for cancellation of applicant's transfer order solely on the ground of illness of his father and if not possible then to post him at Karwar. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the plea on the ground that personal inconvenience cannot be a reason alone for interfering with the transfer order and at the point of consideration there was no vacancy at Karwar. Respondents stressed upon that transfer order was issued in compliance of the transfer order policy (Annexure A-2) by the competent authority and there was no malafide intention on the part of the respondents.
Respondents invited our attention to the relevant extract of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 19 November 1990 in the case of Mrs Shilpi Bose and other vs State of Bihar and others { AIR 1991 SCC 532} that :-
"In our opinion, the Court should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the grounds of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Order issued by the Competent Authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Court continue to interfere with day-to day transfer order issued by the Government and its subordinates authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conductive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders"
We observe that impugned transfer order has been issued in consonance with the policy guidelines (Annexure A-2) by the competent authority and no malafide can be attributed on the part of the respondents in issuing Annexure A-1 transfer order. We find merit in the argument of the respondents that personal inconvenience alone cannot be a ground to interfere with a transfer order issued in the administrative interest to meet functional requirement of the organization, consistent with transfer policy guidelines. Further, in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgement in Mrs. Shilpi case (supra), we find no valid ground to interfere with the transfer order.
Accordingly, the OA fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Annexures OA No./180/237/2025
Annexure A-1: True copy of the Tenure Turn Over Postings Feb-2025: SAA(No.132402/feb-2025/SAA/02/EIB(S)/A2) dated 17.2.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent
Annexure A-2- True copy of the Transfer Policy Guidelines circulated as per E-in-C's Branch AHQ New Delhi letter No.B/20148/PP/EIC(I)/34 dated 28.04.2022
Annexure A-3- True copy of the Letter No.10028/A/TTP/159/EIB(S) 1098/EIB dated 31.01.2025 issued on behalf of the 4th respondent
Annexure A-4- True copy of the representation dated 21.2.2025 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent
Annexure A-5- True copy of the Letter No.132402/Feb-2025/SAA/09/EIB(S)/A2 dated 2.4.2025 issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent
Annexure A-6- True copy of Letter No.132402/Feb-2025/SAA/32/EIB(S)/A2 dated 3.5.2025 issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent
Annexure A-7- True copy of the representation dated 09.5.2025 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent
Annexure A-8- True copy of the Medical Certificate dated 07.1.2025 pertaining to the father of the applicant
Annexure A-9- True copy of the Letter No.10028/TTP/228/EIB(S) dated 3.6.2025 issued on behalf of the 4th respondent