Transfer orders must adhere to established cadre rules; deviations can warrant judicial correction.

ORDER (Oral)

1) Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):- Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner throws challenge to the order of transfer by virtue of which the petitioner, an orderly, was transferred and posted as Store Keeper in the Store Sub-Division.

2) The petitioner has challenged the said order on various grounds as have been mentioned in the O.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the respondents is unjustified and wholly without jurisdiction, as the law permits transfer only within the cadre or class of a government employee and not outside. Admittedly, the applicant is working as an orderly in the respondent department and is, therefore, discharging duties in his own cadre. The cadre to which the applicant is sought to be transferred by virtue of the impugned order being a different cadre in the hierarchy of the respondent department, the action of the respondents cannot withstand the test of law as the same is contrary to the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, reference to which is made in Rule 27.

3) The matter came up for consideration on 06.11.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents was directed to report as to what administrative interest was sought to be achieved by posting an orderly as Store Keeper. Till the Court was notified about the same, the order impugned was kept in abeyance.

4) On 11.11.2025, Mr. Rais ud Din Ganaie, DAG, appeared and produced a communication dated 08.11.2025 addressed by the Technical Officer to the Chief Engineer, J&K U.E.E. Department, Srinagar, to the Deputy Advocate General, U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir, whereby the Technical Officer submitted that the posting of the orderly as Store Keeper was a temporary and provisional measure undertaken solely until the proposal for departmental expansion and recruitment of a regular Store Keeper was formally approved by the Government. It was further submitted that appointing the orderly, who is of a lower cadre, as Store Keeper in these exceptional circumstances serves immediate administrative needs and maintains essential operations within the Division. it was stated that this measure is not intended as a promotion or conferment of a higher status, but simply as an interim step pending departmental expansion and formal appointments, to prevent disruption of services.

5) The order of appointment nowhere speaks or even whispers that the petitioner has been made to function as Store Keeper, or that the appointment was made in exigency. What emerges from the order of appointment is that the orderly (the petitioner) has been transferred as Store Keeper to the Store Sub-Division. As such, it is not known what was the source of the statement made by the Chief Engineer, U.E.E., that the said posting was a temporary and provisional measure.

6) Admittedly, the competent authority is within its power to post an officer temporarily to man a post till the same is filled up in accordance with law. However, there is a set procedure established in law for making such arrangements.

7) Undoubtedly, an orderly was made to man a store, and manning a store requires some degree of expertise — particularly in the Urban Environmental Engineering Department, which is a vast department dealing with stores involving crores of rupees. To appoint an orderly, who is otherwise a Class-IV (now M.T.S.) employee, as Store Keeper, speaks volumes about the efficiency of the department and the concern of the officers at the helm of affairs in manning a store which has been handed over to a person of such a lower cadre.

8) Undoubtedly, the petitioner might be a good,