The court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to conduct a thorough evaluation of legal principles and factual context before vacating interim orders affecting civil service officers' postings.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Pursuant to our last order dated 21.01.2022, Mr Vikram Jetly, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2/UOI, has reverted with instructions.

1.1. Mr Jetly says that he would have no objection, if the matter is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] for a decision on merits.

1.2. For the purposes of convenience and completeness, the order dated 21.01.2022 is extracted hereafter:

"1. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 24.12.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, the "Tribunal"] in OA No.2978/2021.

1.1. Concededly, the aforesaid order is passed qua the interim relief that the petitioners had sought in the O.A.

1.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, in the first instance i.e., on 22.12.2021, the Tribunal had directed maintenance of status quo vis-a-vis the petitioners. This order was, however, vacated, via the impugned order.

1.3. The observations recorded in the impugned order, which led to the Tribunal vacating its earlier order dated 22.12.2021, read as follows:

"...Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the continuance of the interim order would be adverse to public interest. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the facts and circumstances, the continuance of the interim order is no longer required. The same is accordingly vacated..."

2. According to us, a bare perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that there is no discussion on various issues raised by the petitioners.

2.1. Before us, Mr M K Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has raised several issues, which, broadly, can be paraphrased as follows:

(i) Firstly, there are 20 officers in the seniority list, who have not done hard posting.

(ii) The petitioner no.1, who belongs to 2001 batch of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar. Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services (DANICS) officers, has done a stint at Lakshadweep between February 2003 and February 2006. Likewise, petitioner no.2, who, belongs to 2010 batch of DANICS officers, has also done his stint at Lakshadweep, which spanned between March 2013 and May 2016.

(iii) Rule 12 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003 ("2003 Rules"), contained in notification dated 6.8.2003, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs ["MHA"], notified the following concerning posting:

"12. Posting:

Every member of the Service allocated to an Administration shall, unless he is appointed to an ex-cadre post, or is otherwise not available for holding a duty post owing to the exigencies of the public service, be posted against a duty post under the Administration by the Administrator concerned."

(iiia) Based on the aforementioned Rule, the submission made is that a person could be transferred to a place only if a post was available. In conjunction with this, our attention has been drawn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in another O.A. i.e., O.A. No.404/2021. The relevant paragraph of the said counter-affidavit i.e., paragraph 11 is extracted hereafter:

"11. That as per the provisions of the DANICS Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2009 and further amended in 2015), the total number of identified posts and number of officers presently posted in each UT segment, is furnished as under:

(iiib) It is argued that, in