Transfers upheld using station seniority for second tenures; limited judicial review in posting disputes prioritizing organizational needs.

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant, a Junior Engineer (QS&C) in the office of the 4^th respondent is aggrieved by Annexure-A1 order posting him in Carnicobar from Kochi overlooking his service seniority and choice of posting either in Ratnagiri or Karwar, which he had submitted following warning instructions for tenure posting. So, he seeks to quash Annexure-A1 to the extent of his posting in Carnicobar; he also seeks to quash Annexure- A5 order of the 4^th respondent, paragraph 5(e) of Annexure-A6 and Annexure-A8 order of the 3^rd respondent besides to direct the respondents either to retain him in Kochi or to consider him for a change of postings to Ratnagiri or Karwar. He seeks a declaration that Annexure- A1 to the extent it relates to him, Annexure-A5, paragraph 5(e) of Annexure-A6 and Annexure-A8 are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, irrational and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Under the tenure turn over postings of August 2024, the applicant stands transferred and posted to Karwar. In terms of clause 5 of Annexure-A1, he had submitted a representation before the 4^th respondent to be forwarded to the 3^rd respondent. In the representation he had contended that his service seniority over Sri. Asilam, sl.No.4 in Annexure-A1 was not considered while giving the posting. According to him, what is important is the service seniority as envisaged in Annexure- A3 guidelines. However, stating a different reason, which is alien to Annexure-A3, the 4^th respondent rejected his service seniority, returned the representation unactioned; however he permitted the applicant to resubmit an application on any other ground, to the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, he submitted a fresh representation, Annexure-A7, which was forwarded to the 3^rd respondent. But through Annexure-A8, the 3^rd respondent rejected the same and that prompted him to approach the Tribunal seeking the aforestated reliefs.

3. According to the applicant, the posting order is vitiated by malafides, incompetency and transgression of professed norms. As per Annexure-A3 transfer policy framed by the 2^nd respondent, what is important is the service seniority. He is senior to the said Asilam. But, the respondents have taken a stand that the said Asilam, even though is junior in service, had to be preferred since he had completed the first tenure earlier than the applicant and that is the criteria for allotment of choice tenure station in the second tenure or subsequent tenures. According to the respondents, the said Asilam had completed the first tenure on 01.07.2020 whereas the applicant had completed it only on 02.08.2020 and thus basing on clause 5(e) of Annexure-A6, the said Asilam was preferred for posting in Ratnagiri, his choice station. According to the applicant, it is illegal and against Annexure-A3 policy which speaks about only service seniority.

4. According to the applicant, the 3^rd respondent, who is only a delegate, was incompetent to introduce a new condition contrary to the conditions in the transfer policy. Moreover, the 4^th respondent had erred in returning his representation unactioned, raising untenable contentions. Merely for the reason that he had acted upon Annexure-A5 and filed a fresh representation before the 3^rd respondent, he cannot be treated as having waived his right to challenge Annexure-A1.

5. Further, it was submitted that before transferring to Kochi in 2020 he had been working in a hard station in Lakshadweep. Now, the proposed station at Carnicobar is also a hard station and tenure in between two hard st