Administrative decision-making regarding spouse posting must align with established welfare guidelines protecting family integrity and child upbringing. While specific postings are not an inherent right, denials must be substantive and merit-based rather than relying on technical procedural bars or mere administrative prerogative.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN , J.

Heard Mr. F. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury as well as Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned counsels for all the respondents.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for spouse posting at one particular post. The petitioners have also challenged the posting and transfer order dated 17.08.2024 by which petitioner no.1 transferred to Jammu Tawi and order dated 28.08.2024 by which petitioner no.2 was transferred to Silapathar.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them were working under the General Reserve Engineer Force, petitioner no.1 as Operator Excavating Machine (OEM) and petitioner no.2 was working as MSW PNR in the Eastern Base Workshop (EBW), General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), Tezpur.

4. Both the petitioners were working in the organization since 2018 and 2003 respectively under the said graft. The petitioners states that while they were working in their respective post at Tezpur, the respondent no.4 issued an order dated 17.08.2024 for the posting and transfer of General Reserve Engineer Force personnel, by which as stated above the petitioner no.1 was transferred to Jammu Tawi and petitioner no.2 was transferred to Silapathar.

5. The petitioners states that they have a minor child aged about 4 years and being aggrieved by the posting the petitioner no.2 submitted a representation on 03.08.2024 stating inter alia that both the petitioners are employed in the same department and are parents to a 3 years old child and that posting at different places would create hardships in raising their child. Accordingly, petitioner no.2 requested the respondent authorities to consider granting spouse posting in the same unit at a particular place. The petitioner no.2 had also apprised the authorities of an ongoing legal dispute with her brother regarding family property which according to her has caused immense hardship and that posting at a different station from her husband would exaggerate her problems which would have an effect upon her ability to discharge her duties.

6. The said representation was forwarded by the Administrative Officer, Estate and Finance Officer, on behalf of Officiating Commandant. However respondent authorities thorough a letter dated 02.09.2024, replied that the post of OEM which petitioner no.1 was holding was not present in some of the selected choice stations. It be stated here that the petitioner no 2 while giving her representation had enumerated 5 nos. of choice stations as per the ROI. The authorities apprised her that she may file another representation.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner no.2 submitted a fresh representation on 31.08.2025 to the respondent authorities by referring to her earlier representation and she requested for spouse posting again. She has again reiterated the reasons of her child to be raised and her family disputes. The said representation was again forwarded by the authorities concerned. But the respondent authorities informed that the posting orders were issued prior to the receipt of the representation by petitioner no.2. It was intimated that the petitioner has to submit representation 6months before the completion of the tenure as per the alleged guidelines and as such the representation given by the petitioner was not considered.

8. Thereafter, petitioner no.2 had given yet another representation on 28.10.2024 stating inter alia tha