IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative circulars regarding transfers must align with statutory rules, and while such circulars can guide policy, they do not create vested rights that override existing legal frameworks.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 30.01.2024, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner.

3. We consider it appropriate to refer to some essential facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in this petition, which are stated infra.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector in the Central Board of Excise and Customs(CBEC) and was posted in Vadodara zone. The petitioner’s wife was employed as Teacher in the education department of the Government of Rajasthan and she remained posted in Rajasthan. A circular was issued on 27.10.2011 which permitted inter commissionerate transfer on certain conditions applicable to certain beneficiary classes which included a case of request for transfer on the ground that the spouse was posted in another zone. The petitioner made an application for his transfer from Vadodara zone to Jaipur zone on the ground that his wife was posted in Jaipur zone. The representation was considered favourably under circular dated 27.10.2011 and the petitioner was eventually transferred to Jaipur zone vide order dated 13.01.2017. He was assigned seniority in the new transfer zone on 07.05.2018.

5. While the matter stood thus, another circular came to be issued on 20.09.2018 which sought to withdraw earlier circular dated 27.10.2011, taking note of the fact that in view of promulgation of new rules in the year 2016, namely Central Excise Customs Commissionerate Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer, and Examiner) Group-B Post 2016, such permanent inter commissionerate transfers are no longer permissible under the law. The circular was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and the Bench at Bangalore quashed the same. The matter finally travelled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court where the order of the Tribunal was reversed and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the circular.

6. As the circular dated 20.09.2018 stood revived in its force and implementation, the petitioner was sent back to his parent zone i.e. Vadodara zone. Being aggrieved by the said circular dated 20.09.2018, the petitioner and similarly situated persons filed petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur as well as Jodhpur. The Tribunal, relying upon the order passed earlier by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bangalore, disposed off the Original Application as having rendered infructuous in view of the order passed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Union of India preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Vide order dated 18.08.2022, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the earlier order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bangalore was reversed and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2022) 12 SCC 1] had upheld the validity of the circular. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, instead of remanding the case again to the Tribunal, taking into consideration that it was a case relating to transfer, this Court directed the Union of India to examine representations of the employees. It was further directed that the representation shall be decided in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

7. After the aforesaid order, the present petitioner again preferred a representation seeking his transfer in Jaipur zone in which one of the main ground was that his spouse is also in the Government employment in the State of Rajasthan.

8. The respondents, however, rejected the representation vide order dated 03.10.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Original Application, which was dismissed by impugned order, giving rise to this pe