Radhakrishna Mallya vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant, initially appointed w.e.f 02.11.1993, and subsequently promoted as Inspector in 02.02.2009 and then as Assistant Superintendent in 27.01.2016 is posted in Nanjanagudu Division of Mysuru District. His wife is working in a State Government Boys PU College at nearby Hunsur of Mysuru District.

Earlier, on the strength of the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 04.04.2019 in OA No. 1723/2018, the applicant was eventually posted to Chikkamagaluru, against the original transfer to Kolar Division. The applicant has been working at Nanjanagudu in Dharwad District w.e.f 05.06.2023 which is just 65 kms away from the working place of his spouse .

As the matter stood so, responding to the Notification for Rotational Transfer 2026 -27, the applicant submitted a request on 16.02.2026 to transfer him to Mysuru Division on spouse grounds and to look after his old 93 year old father. However, the respondents have transferred Respondent No. 4 to the office of Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Mysuru, though he is junior to the applicant and had also not completed his tenure, thereby overlooking the legitimate claim of the applicant. The applicant has been transferred to Kolar division which is very far from the place of posting of his wife, which is in violation of the Rotational Transfer guidelines issued by the 1^st respondent dated 17.01.2019 and also DOPT OM No. F.No.28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) dated 30.09.2009 and DOPT OM No. DOPT-1669289899529 dated 24.11.2022 . Hence, the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal for relief.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who was initially appointed in 02.11.1993 in Postal Division at Tumkur Division was promoted as Inspector Post in 02.02.2009 and then as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices in 27.01.2016. He is presently posted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices in Nanjangudu of Mysuru District.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has 30 years of unblemished service and his entire service has been exemplary. He has impeccable reputation and there has been no complaint against him at any point of time, either from the department or from the general public.

Recounting the chronological sequence of events in the past, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in 2018, the applicant requested for transfer to Hassan Division on spouse grounds where his wife was working, or to any nearby place like Mandya, Mysuru or Chikkamagaluru Division, if there was no vacancy at Hassan. However, when the Respondents transferred him to the far off Kolar division vide order dated 10.06.2018, despite a clear vacancy at Chikkamagalur Division, the applicant approached this Hon’ble Tribunal through OA No. 1723/2018. This Hon’ble Tribunal, vide Order dated 04.04.2019 directed his transfer to Chikkamagaluru Division and the same was implemented by the respondents .

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that his wife has been working in Government Boys PU College in Hunsur Division of Mysuru District since 25.03.2023 and she will continue there till 2029 as per her Department Rules. The applicant has been working at Nanjanagudu Division since 05.06.2023, which is 65 kms away from the working place of his spouse.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant filed a Contempt Petition MA No. 37/2025 in OA No. 526/2023 on 23.09.2025 and another MA No. 517/2025 on 05.12.2025 to revive the earlier Contempt Petition which he had withdrawn on 31.10.2025, and this has infuriated the Respondents.

The learned counsel for the applicant avers that responding to the Notification for Rotational Transfer 2026-27, which indicated that the post of Assistant Superintendent of Posts(R) of Mysuru was likely to fall vacant, the applicant submitted a representation on 16.02.2026 requesting for transfer to the said Post on spouse grounds and also on compassionate grounds to look after his ailing father who is 93 years old . However, the applicant has been transferred to a far off Kolar Sub Division as ASP, vide impugned order Memo No. SK/STA/1-6/ASP RT/2026-27 dated 08.05.2026, overlooking his legitimate claims of seniority and in violation of the mandate issued by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 1723/2018 and also in violation of DOPT OMs dated 30.09.2009 and dated 24.11.2022. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the impugned order is malafide and arbitrary and has been issued to harass the applicant and wreak vengeance upon him for filing Contempt Petitions against the respondents. Hence, the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal for relief.

The applicant has been transferred out to a far off Kolar Division as a vengeful act, to punish him for filing Contempt Petitions against the respondent. This is also obvious from the fact that though the 4^th respondent had given Nanjanagudu Division as one of the places of posting, he has been posted to Mysuru and the applicant to Kolar, keeping the Nanjanagudu Post vacant.

The impugned order of transfer of the applicant is in violation of the Rotational Transfer Guidelines dated 17.01.2019 and also the DOPT OMs dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022, related to postings of the spouses at the same place.

Even though the 4^th respondent is junior to the applicant and had not even completed his statutory tenure at his present place of posting, he has been transferred to Mysuru Division, overlooking the legitimate claims of the applicant.

The impugned order is also in violation of the law laid down by this very Tribunal in OA No. 1723/2018 dated 04.04.2019 where the applicant was transferred to Chikkamagaluru on spouse grounds.

The impugned order is also in violation of para 5 of the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 where it is clearly mentioned that if the Cadre Controlling Authority is unable to accommodate the spouses at the same place, specific reasons have to be communicated to the employee.

The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 45916 dated 13.11.2018 between Sri. Rajashekhar. M vs. The State of Karnataka & Others and in Writ Petition No. 212920/2019 dated 28.02.2020 between Sri Prem Singh vs. The State of Karnataka & Another, wherein it has been held that the Transfer Guidelines have statutory force and their violation amounts to violation of law.

The Transfer Order is arbitrary and malafide, and therefore warranting interference by the Tribunal. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant invites our attention to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402

Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1991 SC 532

In Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444

State of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh (2010) 13 SCC 306

State of U.P & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal 2004 11 SCC 402

Failure to exhaust Alternate Remedies. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned transfer order was issued on 08.05.2026 and the applicant had filed this OA within 3 days i.e. 11.05.2026 without submitting any representation whatsoever to the higher authorities. Thus, he has failed to exhaust the available Departmental remedies before approaching this Tribunal which is in violation of the CAT Act, 1985.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant’s claim of having unblemished and exemplary record is not correct. He has given several minor punishments for various lapses and presently he is facing Disciplinary Proceedings and a charge sheet is pending against him. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents has furnished the following lists of Punishments and Disciplinary Proceedings against the applicant:

The Applicant was issued severe warning vide Annexure-R6 dated 24.09.2007 for retaining Nagarika Suraksha proposal forms after receiving cash, which resulted in delay in processing the applications.

The Applicant was issued punishment of "withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect" vide Annexure-R7 dated 18.11.22 for lapses during annual inspection of Sangameshwara Pete SO under Chikkamagaluru Division while working as ASP(R), Chikkamagaluru Division.

The Applicant was CENSURED vide Annexure-R8 dated 26.07.2023 for in c/w supervisory lapses during inspection of Luswada B.O (Gujarat Circle) under while working as IP, Bilmora Sub Division under Gujarat Circle.

The Applicant has been issued Charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS-CCA Rules 1965 vide Annexure R9 dated 28.01.2026 for irregularities/shortcomings in investigation of loss and fraud case of Honnenahalli BO a/w Hirisave SO under Hassan Division, while he was working as IP, Channarayapatna Sub division under Hassan Division.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is limited scope of judicial review in matter of transfers of employees. Interference is warranted only if transfer order is malafide or arbitrary or is in violation of the laid down Rules/Procedures. In the present case the transfer has been carried out strictly as per the laid down rules and procedures and hence, it does not warrant any interference from the Hon’ble Tribunal. In this regard, he invites our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Order of this Tribunal dated 04.04.2019 in OA No. 1723/2018 was complied with by the respondents and it is no more applicable to the present OA as the earlier matter was totally settled. The earlier Orders of the Tribunal does not create a perpetuate mandate or res judicata for subsequent transfers of the applicant.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the transfer of the applicant to Kolar was on completion of prescribed tenure of three years at Nanjanagudu Division and is part of a large regional Rotational Transfer Exercise as per the Transfer Guidelines.

Rebutting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this Transfer was in violation of Para 5(xvi) of the Rotational Transfer Guidelines dated 17.01.2019 and the DOPT OMs dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that these guidelines do not confer any absolute or unforceable right for the employees to be posted at a particular station. In this regard, he invites our attention to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

He further points out that even within the Rotational Transfer Framework, the guidelines in Para 5(iv) direct the authority to 'Consider' options and effect transfers 'subject to administrative convenience and availability of post' - not on the basis of seniority alone.

Responding to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the Rotational Transfer Guidelines have Statutory Force, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that these guidelines only state that the DOPT Guidelines must be considered. ‘Consideration’ does not mean that every decision has to be in the favour of the applicant.

Justifying the transfer posting of the respondent no. 4 to Mysuru Division over seniority claim of the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no. 4 had stronger claim on the grounds that he had served for four years away from the place of posting of his spouse, first at SK Regional Office Bengaluru (2 years) and then at O/o CPMG Karnataka Bengaluru (2 years). He argues that in contrast, the applicant has been working at a place close to the posting of his spouse for the last four years. Moreover, Respondent no. 4 was transferred on ‘Request Basis’ whereas the applicant transfer was a part of Rotational Transfer Exercise as he had already completed his tenure at the present place of posting.

Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned transfer order was an act of retaliation to the Contempt Petitions filed by the applicant, which enraged the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant had voluntarily withdrawn the Contempt Petition. He further submits that the transfer order was a part of a routine Annual Rotational Transfer Exercise which has nothing to do with the Contempt Petitions filed by the applicant.

The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has also filed the reply. In the reply, the counsel has essentially endorsed the averments of the learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3, as applicable to respondent no. 4. He has further stated that Respondent no. 4 has been working in Bangalore Region since 24.02.2022 and has completed his four years tenure on 24.02.2026 and was due for transfer in 2026-27. He further stated that the Respondent No. 4 had given a request transfer application for Mysore as his wife is posted there in SBI and is having a 10 year old child and has been away from his family for more than four years . He further stated that the the request of Respondent no. 4 was accepted by Respondents no. 2 and 3 as it was a very genuine request and not because of any undue influence exercised by any other entity .

Relying upon Para 4 of the Rotational Guidelines, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was senior, he should have been given preference over Respondent No. 4 for posting to Mysuru Division. He further invites our attention to the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 378/2022 between Ningappa Ghangapur vs. Union of India dated 02.08.2023.

The relevant portion is produced here infra as ready reference;

The learned counsel for the applicant also points out that despite the fact that the Notification for Rotational Transfer 2026-27 indicated last date for submission of the application/representation as 23.02.2026, the application of Respondent No. 4 was accepted though it was submitted on 20.04.2026, which is clearly violation of the laid down principles and rules. Furthermore, the respondent no. 4 belong to another region (Bengaluru Headquarter Region) and therefore, consideration of his representation was irregular.

The learned counsel for the applicant further points out that the wife of the 4^th Respondent is working in PSU and as per Para 4 (vi) of the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009, she should have applied first for transfer on spouse grounds. If her request was not granted, then only the Respondent No. 4 could applied for transfer on spouse ground. In this regard, he has cited the relevant Rule which reads as follows:

In this case it is not known whether the wife of the 4^th Respondent had applied for transfer to Bengaluru or not, and hence adverse inference should be drawn in this regard.

The learned counsel for the applicant also avers that it is also on record that the 4th respondent himself requested for posting to Nanjanagudu Division in the place of the applicant. The 3rd respondent with malafide intentions has wilfully posted the 4th respondent to Mysuru, instead of posting him to Nanjanagudu to harass the applicant.

Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the DOPT OMs are not mandatory, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the word ‘Shall’ is used. He has cited the relevant portion which is as follows:

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that while the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have cited the DOPT OMs to favourably consider the case of Respondent No. 4 for transfer of mutual grounds, the same has not been extended to him which shows undue discrimination.

The learned counsel for the applicant further points out that in several cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble CAT have taken an adverse view regarding the respondents not complying with their own instructions and rules. In this regard, he has cited certain extracts of the judgments which are reproduced as below:

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since the applicant had completed his tenure at Nanjanagudu his claim for posting to Mysuru was stronger than that of the 4^th Respondent as he had not completed his tenure and was prematurely transferred to Mysuru. He had completed just one year of his service at Circle Office, Bengaluru. The learned counsel for the applicant also argues that the applicant on being promoted to the post of Inspector worked in a far away place in Gujarat State while the 4^th Respondent has rendered his entire service only at Mysuru, Nanjanagudu and Bengaluru and he has been enjoying all the benefits of being in the Home State.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the very purpose of issue of guidelines is defeated if they are not complied with and in this regard, he cites the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No-11934/20022 between R D Ramadas vs State of Karnataka decided on 25/08/2022 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that,

The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that as the applicant is 56 years old with only 4 years of service, his claim is stronger than that of the 4^th Respondent who is having more than 15 years of service left.

The learned counsel for the applicant has also cited certain instances wherein the respondents have allegedly extended undue favour to influential employees in matter of transfers and postings. He further submits that when the applicant had challenged the same in the Hon’ble Tribunal, he was issued three charge memos.

Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the Transfer Notification considers seniority as a sole yardstick for transfers, he cites the relevant Para which states as follows:

He states that keeping in mind the above guidelines which considers seniority as one of the three criteria, the respondents have made a balanced decision. The decision was also based on the welfare claim of the 4^th Respondent who had been serving away from his family for the last four years. In contrast, the applicant has been in the same Division where his wife was working for the last three years.

Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the application of 4^th Respondent was accepted beyond the stipulated deadline and outside his division, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that the 4^th Respondent had submitted his application on 13.02.2026 which was before the cut-off date of 23.02.2026. On his re-allotment to the Mysuru Division his application dated 17.04.2026 was accepted which was related to the request transfer and had nothing to do with the Rotational Transfer Exercise for which the deadline was 13.02.2026.

The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that insistence on the wife of the 4^th Respondent to apply first as per Para 4(vi) of the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 is hypertechnical and selective reading of the provision. As the overarching purpose of the DOPT OMs is to ensure that the family stays together, the same was achieved by accepting the request transfer application of the 4^th Respondent.

Explaining the Transfer Guidelines on spouse grounds, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that DOPT OM guidelines on spouse posting say 'shall be taken into account' - it does not say that spouse-ground requests 'shall always be granted.’

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that spouse posting guidelines do not confer an absolute or legally enforceable right and are subject to the exigencies of Administration. In this regard he again place on the reliance of the judgment of SK Nausad Rahman vs. Union of India, Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta and State of UP vs. Gobardhan Lal.

Making a distinction between Rotational Transfer Guidelines and Request Posting, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that Respondent No. 4 had already worked in Bengaluru for the last 4 years. He submits that the tenure and seniority rules applicable to Part C rotational transfers do not govern Part B re-allotment postings.

Taking strong exception to the allegations against the respondent regarding the wrongful transfers and vengeful Disciplinary Proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that these are totally unsubstantiated. The Disciplinary Proceedings against the applicant were as per the procedure prescribed under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and were based on documented lapses.

The learned counsel for the respondents concludes by stating that in the light of the above, the OA has no legs to stand upon and should be dismissed.

The transfer of the applicant is made with malafide intention to harass the applicant as he had filed the contempt petition against the official respondents, and also to favour the 4th respondent.

The respondents themselves admitted in the reply statement that they have transferred the 4th respondent on spouse grounds based on the DOPT OMs. Though the applicant is more deserving to get the benefit of the said OMs, his case was not considered due to malafide intentions.

The wife of the 4th respondent should have submitted her requisition to the competent authorities of PSU to post her to the place where the 4th respondent was working & if the PSU authorities denies her request for want of vacancy in the PSU where the 4th respondent was working, in that scenario only the 4th respondent can apply for transfer under spouse grounds.

There is nothing on record to show that the wife of the 4^th Respondent at all applied for transfer under spouse grounds to the competent authorities in PSU. Nor the 4th respondent has produced anything to show that the authorities under PSU has rejected the case of the 4th respondent's wife to transfer her to the place where the 4th respondent was working.

The respondents willfully suppressed the fact that from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f 27/11/2004 till he got promoted to the Inspector Posts on 10/09/2012, the 4^th Respondent has worked in Mysuru District only, and in Nanjanagudu Division only.

Except for one year at Sullia, the entire service of the 4th respondent was in large cities/places like Mysuru City & Bengaluru City whereas the applicant worked in Gujrat State and also worked in small Taluk level places like Tiptur, Honnavalli, Urdigere, Holavanahalli, Koratagere, Sira, Madhugiri, Tumkur, Bilmora, Channarayapatna, Hubballi, Dharwada, Kolar, Chikmagaluru and Nanjanagudu.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted a table of postings of Respondent No. 4 which is as follows:

The learned counsel for the applicant, across the Bar, pointed out that the 4^th Respondent, since his initial appointment in November, 2007 till May, 2026 has worked in fourteen places. Out of these fourteen places, seven places are in Mysuru City and four places are in Bengaluru City. Furthermore, ten out of his fourteen postings have been done on his request. It is further seen that his posting to SK Region in April, 2022 was also in Bengaluru City as per his request.

The wife of the applicant is working at Hunsur where she will continue till 2029.

The grievance of the applicant is not against transfer itself, but against arbitrary exercise of discretion despite the Applicant's seniority, completed tenure and spouse-ground request. He summarises his case as follows:

The Applicant has completed the prescribed tenure and is due for transfer.

The applicant sought posting in Mysuru District on spouse ground, as his wife serves in Hunsur Division, Mysuru District and she is not eligible for transfer till 2029.

Instead, the Applicant has been posted about 250 kilometres away from his spouse working place

Vacancy existed in Mysuru District.

The vacancy was allotted to Respondent 4, who is junior to the Applicant and has also not completed his tenure at the present place.

Respondent No. 4 was also seeking transfer on spouse ground.

Respondent No. 4 had opted for another station (Nanjanagudu) in the same district and was eligible for that post. As the Applicant had already completed his tenure in that post, he was more eligible for the post to which the 4th respondent is now posted.

The Applicant’s posting at Gujarat Postal Circle was on his own request (Annexure R-13) as he was a part of the surplus who had qualified in the Inspector of Posts Examination-2007.

In response to the Rotational Transfer Memo dated 11.02.2026, the Respondent No. 4 who was working in the Office of Respondent no. 2 submitted a representation dated 13.02.2026 through proper channel to Respondent No.3. In this representation which was submitted well before the deadline of 23.02.2026, he requested for posting either in Mysuru Division or in Nanjanagudu Division. Since Respondent No. 4 worked in a different division, no action was taken on his representation. Subsequently, his re-allotment was considered and he was allotted South Karnataka Region vide memo dated 17.04.2026. Taking cognizance of his earlier request Transfer representation, he was subsequently transferred to Mysuru Postal Division as ASP(R) vide memo dated 08.05.2026.

Annexure A-4:

ANNEXURE A-5

ANNEXURE A- 6

Annexure R-1

This is also in violation of clause which says that one’s transfer should not be at the cost of another .

From the above facts and circumstances, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The applicant is 56 years old and he is left with four years of service while the Respondent No. 4 is younger and has fifteen years of service.

The applicant is senior than the 4th respondent.

The Respondent No. 4 was appointed in 2007 and in the last nineteen years or so of his service, he has done seven postings in Mysuru and four postings in Bengaluru. It is also seen that out of his fourteen postings, ten postings were done as per his request. It is also seen that the posting of the 4^th Respondent in April, 2022, Bengaluru City was also as per his request. He has continued in the last four years in Bengaluru City. His posting to Bengaluru was also as per his request, as per the records. It is clear that the 4^th Respondent has consciously chosen to be posted to Bengaluru in 2022 and it is as per his request.

Further, the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 in Para 4 (vi) clearly lays down that if the two spouses are from the PSU and Central Government, respectively, it is incumbent upon the spouse working in the PSU to apply first for transfer on spouse grounds. However, nothing brought on record to show that the spouse of the 4^th Respondent applied for transfer on spouse grounds to Bengaluru where her husband i.e. Respondent No. 4 was posted. Thus, it is clear that the prescribed procedure in this regard was not followed.

It is also very clear that while the applicant had completed his tenure in the present place of posting, Respondent No. 4 has not done so.

It is also seen that to accommodate the request of the Respondent No. 4, first of all there was re-allotment of his division from Bengaluru Division to Mysuru Division which was followed by his posting to Mysuru.

Part D (ii) of Policy of Rotational Transfers also indicates that each employee should give three options of the place of postings. It is seen that though Respondent No. 4 had given Nanjanagudu also as his one of his three preferences, however, the same was not carried out by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

It is further seen that Notification regarding Rotational Transfers states as follows:

If the above mention guideline was being implemented in true letter and spirit and a balance was sought to be struck between seniority, administrative exigency, welfare, as earlier expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents, then the applicant could have been comfortably accommodated in Mysuru Division in view of his seniority and on spouse grounds and Respondent No. 4 could have been accommodated in Nanjanagudu (his second preference) on spouse grounds. However, this was not done for reasons best known to the respondents and the same has remained unexplained by the learned counsel for the respondents, though the matter has been raised repeatedly by the learned counsel for the applicant.

The very fact that the 4^th Respondent has worked for almost his entire career in Bengaluru and Mysuru Divisions and ten out of his fourteen postings were as per his request, and he was posted to Mysuru (his first preference) overlooking the seniority and completion of tenure of the applicant tends to give credence to the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the 4^th Respondent has been exercising undue influence.

At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that Para A (ii) of Annexure A-4 dated 17.01.2019, which is Guidelines for Transfers states as follows:

However, it is evident from the above, that the transfer of Respondent No. 4 to Mysuru Division is done at the expense of the legitimate request of the applicant. Thus, though the 4^th Respondent has specifically mentioned Nanjanagudu as one of the three preferred places of postings, he was given posting to his first preference place, thereby, not striking a proper balance in the three laid down criteria welfare, administrative exigency and seniority and causes injury to the Applicant, which is in violation of the above mentioned guideline.

It is also seen that the applicant has not come with clean hands to the Court. While learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant had a clean and unblemished record, the learned counsel for the respondents has furnished specific details of the punishments and disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. It is also seen that the impugned order was issued on 08.05.2026 and the applicant has filed this OA on 11.05.2026 without submitting any representation to the higher authorities. This is in violation of Clause 20 (i) of the Administrative Tribunal, Act 1985 which reads as follows:

At this stage, it would be appropriate to summarise all the facts brought on record to determine where the ratio of balance lies.

It is seen that the applicant has a strong case on the criteria of seniority, completion of tenure, spouse grounds, having worked in far off and small/interior places and also the fact that he has just four years of service left. It is also seen that the applicant was not communicated the reasons by the respondents for their inability to accommodate his request for transfer to the station of his spouse, which is in violation of Para 5 of DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009. It is further seen that the 4^th Respondent has worked in seven postings in Mysuru and four postings in Bengaluru out of his total fourteen postings, and out of these fourteen postings, ten postings were as per his own request. It is further seen that his last posting in SK Region in Bengaluru City in April, 2022 was also as per his own request and therefore, the contention that he stayed away from his spouse from 2022 is not acceptable as he voluntarily sought that posting, away from his family. It is also seen that the respondents have chosen to overlook Rule in Para 4 (vi) of the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 which stipulates that if one spouse belongs to the Central Service and the other belongs to PSU, the spouse employed under the PSU may apply to the Competent Authority first. It is further seen that the learned counsel for the respondents resorted to whataboutery and obfuscation to justify the re-allotment of division and posting of the 4^th Respondent in Mysuru Division which is not convincing. Thus, it appears that the 4^th Respondent has been being unduly favoured at the expense of the applicant, which is causing injury to his interests which is also in violation of Para A (ii) of Guidelines for Transfers dated 17.01.2019.

However, keeping in mind several judgements of the Supreme Court, which allude at minimal intervention by the judiciary in matters of transfers & postings, and the fact that the applicant has not exhausted all the available remedies. I will refrain from setting aside the entire impugned order.

I would like to afford the respondents a fair opportunity to reconsider their order of posting of the applicant to Kolar, on the basis of the laid down Departmental Rules, DoPT OMs on spouse postings & the previous track record of postings of the applicant.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the following order is issued:

The OA is partially allowed. The order of Transfer Memo vide SK/STA/1-6/ASP RT/2026-27 dated 08.05.2026, only with respect to the Applicant is set aside.

The Applicant is directed to furnish a detailed representation to the Postal Department/Respondents for consideration of his transfer request.

The Respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant, treating this OA as part of it, in the light of the DOPT OMs. dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022, the transfer guidelines of the Postal Department regarding seniority, completion of tenure, etc, and our observations mentioned above, within 4 weeks of the receipt of representation of the applicant.

All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

The parties will bear their own costs.

The OA is disposed of accordingly.