Sanjeev Kumar Awasthi & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders issued pursuant thereto, and for protection of the applicants at their respective places of posting. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that the applicants, namely, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Awasthi, Shri Sanjay Dubey, Dr. R.K. Tiwari, Shri R.K. Mehrotra and Smt. Kiran Mishra, were working as Assistant Engineers (Quality Assurance) in the Technical Cadre at different establishments of the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), Kanpur. The applicants have challenged the Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby they were transferred from Kanpur to different stations, including New Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai, as also the consequential movement orders dated 04.08.2017, 10.08.2017, 11.08.2017, 14.08.2017 and 17.08.2017. The applicants’ case is that they were working on sensitive posts and, under the Rotational Transfer Policy, staff working on sensitive posts could be transferred, on completion of the prescribed tenure, to a non-sensitive post, subject to availability of vacancies. According to the applicants, instead of transferring them from sensitive to non-sensitive posts, the impugned order transferred them from sensitive posts to other sensitive posts. The applicants have also relied upon the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016 issued by the Ministry of Defence in respect of Group ‘B’ (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) officials of DGQA, whichprescribed, inter alia, the tenure and posting/transfer conditions applicable to such officials. Subsequently, vide communication dated 28.12.2016, the DGQA clarified the position regarding the Posting/Transfer Policy in respect of Group ‘B’ officials, keeping the policy in abeyance with regard to Non-Technical Group ‘B’ officials, while the applicants contend that the said clarification did not exclude the Technical Cadre. The applicants have also referred to the orders passed in O.A. No. 170/00150/2017 and O.A. No. 364/2017 before the Bangalore Bench, O.A. No. 486/2017 before the Bombay Bench, O.A. No. 2791/2017 before the Principal Bench, and O.A. No. 956/2017 before the Allahabad Bench, involving similarly situated employees, and have claimed similar protection on the basis thereof. The applicants therefore contend that the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders are contrary to the applicable policy and instructions.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 is contrary to the applicable transfer policy. He submitted that the applicants were working on sensitive posts as Assistant Engineers (QA) at SQAE (GS), Kanpur and, under the Government of India policy dated 07.03.1988, an employee working on a sensitive post, upon completion of the prescribed tenure, was required to be transferred to a non-sensitive post, preferably in another establishment at the same station and, failing availability of such a post, to an outside station, whereas the applicants had been transferred from their existing sensitive posts pursuant to the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016 issued by the Ministry of Defence was also required to be followed by the Technical Directorates of DGQA. He contended that the subsequent action of the respondents in issuing the impugned transfer and movement orders was inconsistent with the aforesaid policy provisions. He also placed reliance upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 170/00150/2017 dated 05.05.2017 and in O.A. No. 364/2017 dated 24.07.2017, as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble CAT,BombayBench in O.A. No. 486/2017,in support of the applicants’claim for protection from the consequential movement pursuant to the rotational transfer order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned Rotational Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 was issued in accordance with the applicable Posting/Transfer Policy of DGQA and the subsequent amendments thereto. He submitted that the applicants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place and that transfer is an incidence of service. He further submitted that the revised policy was legally and administratively valid and had been framed after considering the representations received from the concerned associations. He further submitted that the subsequent communications issued in connection with the revised Rotational Transfer Policy, including the communication dated 28.12.2016, were required to be considered in their proper perspective and did not confer any general exemption from the rotational transfer policy upon all Group ‘B’ officials. Reliance was also placed upon the orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal in similar matters, wherein challenges to rotational transfer orders were dismissed.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016 applicable to Group ‘B’ Gazetted and Non-Gazetted officials of DGQA superseded the earlier policy dated 20.05.2011 and was subsequently amended through various orders dated 20.12.2016, 10.02.2017, 02.05.2017 and 26.05.2017. It was stated that the revised policy prescribed the tenure and rotational transfer requirements and that the applicants were liable to be transferred in accordance with the said policy. The respondents further relied upon the dismissal of several similar Original Applications by different Benches of the Tribunal and upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service and that interference is warranted only in cases of violation of statutory provisions or established mala fides.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have reiterated the averments made in the Original Application and denied the contrary assertions made in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the respondents have misconstrued the applicable transfer policies and that the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2017 is contrary to the Government guidelines dated 07.03.1988, particularly the provisions relating to transfer of employees working on sensitive posts. The applicants have contended that, after completion of tenure on a sensitive post, the employee was required to be considered for a non-sensitive post, preferably at the same station, and that the applicants were instead transferred to different stations. It has further been contended that the revised RTP dated 24.11.2016 was applicable to Group ‘B’ Gazetted and Non-Gazetted officials and that the respondents could not rely upon the said policy in a manner discriminatory to the applicants. The applicants also referred to the rotational transfer orders and asserted that their cases were similarly situated to other employees who had obtained relief from the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain subsequent and relevant developments. It has been stated that the applicants are working on sensitive posts as Assistant Engineers (QA) at SQAE (GS), Kanpur and that, under the applicable policy, an employee working on a sensitive post can be transferred only to a non-sensitive post. The applicants have relied upon the communication dated 21.04.2017 regarding rotation of officers and staff holding sensitive posts and the subsequent clarification/identification of sensitive posts. It has further been stated that the respondents had issued transfer/movement orders dated 20.07.2017 and 04.08.2017, 11.08.2017, 14.08.2017, 17.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 despite the applicants having submitted representations against the same. The applicants have also brought on record the DGQA communication dated 27.08.2018, wherein the policy was stated to be deficient and the need for better policies was acknowledged, as well as the minutes of the 22nd Main Meeting of the JCM III Level Council of DGQA dated 18.07.2018, wherein the issue of amendments/incorporation in the RTP was discussed. On the basis of these subsequent developments, it has been contended that the impugned transfer order and consequential movement orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1010 of 2017 and other orders passed by different Benches of the Tribunal in similar matters, and further placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 170 of 2026, whereby the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Tribunal was set aside and O.A. No. 363 of 2023 was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants’ cases are similarly situated and that the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2017 and consequential movement orders, being contrary to the applicable Rotational Transfer Policy, are liable to be interfered with.

Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that, in the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, it has been specifically stated that the impugned Rotational Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders dated 04.08.2017, 10.08.2017, 11.08.2017, 14.08.2017 and 17.08.2017 were issued in respect of the applicants, who are working as Assistant Engineers (Quality Assurance) in the Technical Cadre. He further submitted that the case of the applicants is required to be considered in the light of the applicable Posting/Transfer Policy and the provisions relating to rotational transfer of officials working on sensitive posts. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the earlier orders passed by different Benches of the Tribunal in similar matters and submitted that the applicants are similarly situated and, therefore, the impugned transfer order and the consequential movement orders are liable to be interfered with.

I have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh along with Ms. Karishma Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and material available on record.

Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the written submissions and the material available on record, the principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the applicants have made out any legally sustainable ground for interference with the Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders. The applicants have principally challenged the transfer on the ground that they were working on sensitive posts and that the transfer was not in conformity with the Posting/Transfer Policy dated 07.03.1988 and the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016, as amended from time to time. They have also relied upon orders passed by coordinate Benches in respect of other employees covered by the same rotational transfer exercise. The aforesaid contentions are required to be examined in the light of the relevant policy documents, subsequent amendments and the decisions relied upon by the parties.

The applicants have challenged the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders on the ground that the same are contrary to the applicable Rotational Transfer Policy. The revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016, relating to Group ‘B’ (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) officials of DGQA, has been placed on record as Annexure A-4. Subsequently, vide communication dated 28.12.2016, the policy was kept in abeyance in respect of Non-Technical Group ‘B’ officials. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence issued an amendment order dated 10.02.2017, placed on record as Annexure SA-3, whereby various provisions of the policy dated 24.11.2016 were amended. The said order records that, after issuance of the original policy, various representations had been received from different quarters seeking amendments to the policy and that, after consideration of those representations and with the approval of the competent authority, amendments were being made to the Rotational Transfer Policy. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.02.2017 is quoted below:-

The aforesaid amendment order, inter alia, substituted the normal tenure of Group ‘B’ officials in a post from three years to five years, deleted paragraph 6 concerning cumulative tenure at the same station, changed the cut-off date for calculating tenure from 1 January to 1 July, amended the provision concerning officials having three years or less remaining before superannuation, modified the provision relating to retention at a station on educational grounds for children studying in Classes X or XII, and amended paragraph 9(b) concerning preference where more than one official seeks posting at the same station and adequate vacancies are not available. The policy dated 24.11.2016 is, therefore, required to be read along with the amendments subsequently introduced by the competent authority.

The respondents have also relied upon orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal in similar matters. In this regard, O.A. No. 170/00364/2017, titled DQA Group ‘B’ Technical Officers Association v. Union of India & Others, was decided by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal on 17.10.2017.While considering the challenge to the Rotational Transfer Policy, 2016, the Bangalore Bench observed in paragraph 14 as under:-

The aforesaid decision supports the validity of the Rotational Transfer Policy, 2016 against a challenge founded merely upon the exclusion of Non-Technical cadres from its purview. The applicants’ specific grievance concerning transfer from sensitive posts to other sensitive posts, however, falls to beconsidered on the basis of the policy provisions and the material available in the present case.

It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place of his choice. In Rajendra Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 178, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, has further held as under:-

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Tribunal finds that the applicants have not established that the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 was issued by an incompetent authority, was actuated by mala fides, or violated any statutory provision governing their service. The applicants’ reliance upon the policy instructions dated 07.03.1988 and the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016, as amended by the order dated 10.02.2017, including the provisions relating to employees working on sensitive posts, has been considered. The subsequent communications and deliberations relied upon by the applicants, including the communication dated 21.04.2017, the DGQA communication dated 27.08.2018 and the JCM III Level Council minutes dated 18.07.2018, do not establish that the competent authority was legally prohibited from issuing the impugned rotational transfer orders. In the absence of any established statutory violation, mala fide exercise of power or other legally sustainable ground, this Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent administrative authority in matters of posting and transfer.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.