The court affirmed that government employees have no inherent right to be posted at a specific location, and transfer decisions are primarily administrative, subject to limited judicial review.

ORDER

PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking for a direction upon the respondents for setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 20.04.2024 (Annexure-A/1), impugned order dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-A/2) and impugned relieving order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure-A/3) and to allow him to continue in the present place of posting at CBI, ACB, Imphal or any other nearby place after obtaining his choice.

2. As per the applicant, he was initially appointed on 06.04.1994 as Lower Division Clerk and posted at CBI/Anti Corruption Branch/Shillong. In 2005, he was transferred to Imphal. In 2006, for a period of 6 months from 12.12.2005 to 11.06.2006, he was posted at CBI, ACB, Silchar Branch under attachment and transferred back to Imphal wherein he is presently working as Crime Assistant. His wife is a Physical Education Teacher at JNV, Mizoram and his daughter aged about 14 years is studying in Class X at JNV, Imphal West. He is aggrieved with the impugned Office Order dated 20.04.2024 (Annexure-A/1), whereby he had been transferred from CBI, Imphal, Manipur to CBI, International Operations Division, Delhi which is in violation of Para 4(iv) and 5 of the DoPT OM dated 30.09.2009 for spouse posting in the same station; and during mid academic session of his daughter studying in Class X being against the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Vs. O. Kuruppa Thevan [1994 Supp (2) SCC 666].

3. As per the applicant, reason for his transfer is not administrative ground or administrative exigency but is only a measure of penalty for which the order of transfer passed in lieu of punishment is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592 .

4. The official respondents have filed their written statement wherein they stated that there is no infirmity in the Office Order dated 20.04.2024 vide which the applicant was transferred from CBI, ACB, Imphal to CBI, IOD, Delhi. Moreover, applicant has remained posted at Imphal continuously since 2005 till his transfer on 20.04.2024, barring a period of 06 months from 12.12.2005 to 11.06.2006 when he was attached to CBI ACB, Silchar Branch. The respondents are relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992) 1 SCC 306 and Union of India Vs. SL Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 .

5. As per the respondents, the claim of the applicant for setting aside the transfer order based on the said judgment is not in the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Vs. O. Kuruppa Thevan (1994) Supp (2) SCC 666. It is settled proposition of law that OMs/Government instructions on transfer including OM dated 30.09.2009 are guidelines and that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as a matter of right in case the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. Moreover, the applicant already enjoyed the benefit of spouse posting since 2005 when he was posted at Imphal. The applicant does not have any right to be posted in a particular place indefinitely on the ground of spouse posting as held by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 21/2020 & O.A. No. 202/2022 (Smti. Ch. Kanonbala Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

6. I have gone through the submissions as well as pleadings made during the hearing by the counsel for the applicant as well as respondents. I have also gone through