The Union of India and another v. Counsel for

16.06.2023 wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court inter alia held and observed, as under: "7. From the materials that have been placed on record, it remains undisputed that petitioner is a member of All India Services and he holds a transferable post. It is otherwise settled that transfer is an incidence of service. Petitioner has already completed a tenure of more than 3 years at Kanpur. His continuance in the region is stated to be for more than 10 years. In such circumstances we find absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the Department if the petitioner is transferred to Guntur. The refusal by Central Administrative Tribunal to interfere on the interim application filed in original application therefore merits no interference. from Kanpur

8. Notwithstanding the above, we are inclined to observe that since the policy does permit an option to be exercised by the officer concerned vide clause 5.1 of the transfer policy and as such privilege has not been extended to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to provide that in the event petitioner joins pursuant to the order of transfer, forthwith, he will be at liberty to make a representation disclosing his preference for the place of posting. The department shall accord consideration to such 2 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025 representation of the petitioner, as per the policy and the administrative exigency, expeditiously. "

3. It would be seen that the Division Bench, while upholding the transfer of the petitioner from Kanpur to Guntur, in view of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy, gave liberty to the petitioner to make a representation disclosing his preference for the place of posting and the respondents were directed to accord consideration to such representation as per the policy and the administrative exigency.

4. The petitioner filed his representation on 21.06.2023 inter alia giving choice of Lucknow, Kanpur (NACIN), Bhopal, Raipur & Prayagraj. The petitioner also indicated his medical condition for transfer from Guntur.

5. The representation came to be decided by order dated 14.08.2023 wherein the respondents came to the conclusion that adequate medical facilities are available at Guntur and, therefore, the plea raised pertaining to the medical condition had no substance, whereafter it was observed that the Placement Committee, after due consideration of the representation, has proposed no change to the current posting of the petitioner and the representation was disposed of.

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner inter alia questioned the rejection of the representation/non consideration of the representation for posting at any of the five places indicated by the petitioner.

7. The Tribunal, by the order impugned, came to the conclusion that the said order dated 14.08.2023 was not challenged by the petitioner and consequently, dismissed the O.A.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the representation was made by the petitioner under the directions of the Court while dismissing the petition filed against refusal of interim order and, therefore, it was incumbent on the respondents to consider the said aspect and once the said aspect was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the plea was required to be considered and rejection only on the ground that the order dated 14.08.2023 was not challenged by way of amendment, could not be made the basis for such rejection.

9. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the indication made by the 3 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025 Tribunal regarding non challenge to the order dated 14.08.2023 in the O.A. and submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been duly considered and no interference is called for.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. Insofar as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the initial order of transfer is concerned, the Division Bench in Writ A No. 10229 of 2023 (supra) by making determination in paragraph 7 clearly indicated that there was absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the Department in transferring the petitioner from Kanpur to Guntur and that there was no merit in the challenge laid. To the said extent, the matter has attained finality.

12. So far as the ground based on paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Division Bench requiring the petitioner to make a representation is concerned, a look at the order dated 14.08.2023 clearly reveals that while one part of the petitioner's representation pertaining to his medical condition has been adequately dealt with, however, qua his indication of preference in terms of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy, not a word has been indicated as to why the same is not required to be considered and if considered, why he cannot be posted at any of the said places. The said non-consideration is in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 16.06.2023.

13. So far as the determination made by the Tribunal for not going into the said aspect of the order dated 14.08.2023, on account of non-challenge of the said order is concerned, we are of the opinion that once, pursuant to the rejection of the stay application, the petitioner had approached this Court wherein during the pendency of O.A. the direction was given to make a consideration and that order was brought on record of the case, the Tribunal should have considered the aspect of the matter whether the same was in consonance with the directions issued by this Court and non- consideration thereof, cannot be sustained.

14. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. 4 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025

15. The respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 21.06.2023 in relation to requirement of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy in terms of directions issued by this Court on

16.06.2023 quoted hereinbefore. Needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks. September 18, 2025 Sandeep/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

16.06.2023 wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court inter alia held and observed, as under: "7. From the materials that have been placed on record, it remains undisputed that petitioner is a member of All India Services and he holds a transferable post. It is otherwise settled that transfer is an incidence of service. Petitioner has already completed a tenure of more than 3 years at Kanpur. His continuance in the region is stated to be for more than 10 years. In such circumstances we find absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the Department if the petitioner is transferred to Guntur. The refusal by Central Administrative Tribunal to interfere on the interim application filed in original application therefore merits no interference. from Kanpur

8. Notwithstanding the above, we are inclined to observe that since the policy does permit an option to be exercised by the officer concerned vide clause 5.1 of the transfer policy and as such privilege has not been extended to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to provide that in the event petitioner joins pursuant to the order of transfer, forthwith, he will be at liberty to make a representation disclosing his preference for the place of posting. The department shall accord consideration to such 2 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025 representation of the petitioner, as per the policy and the administrative exigency, expeditiously. "

3. It would be seen that the Division Bench, while upholding the transfer of the petitioner from Kanpur to Guntur, in view of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy, gave liberty to the petitioner to make a representation disclosing his preference for the place of posting and the respondents were directed to accord consideration to such representation as per the policy and the administrative exigency.

4. The petitioner filed his representation on 21.06.2023 inter alia giving choice of Lucknow, Kanpur (NACIN), Bhopal, Raipur & Prayagraj. The petitioner also indicated his medical condition for transfer from Guntur.

5. The representation came to be decided by order dated 14.08.2023 wherein the respondents came to the conclusion that adequate medical facilities are available at Guntur and, therefore, the plea raised pertaining to the medical condition had no substance, whereafter it was observed that the Placement Committee, after due consideration of the representation, has proposed no change to the current posting of the petitioner and the representation was disposed of.

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner inter alia questioned the rejection of the representation/non consideration of the representation for posting at any of the five places indicated by the petitioner.

7. The Tribunal, by the order impugned, came to the conclusion that the said order dated 14.08.2023 was not challenged by the petitioner and consequently, dismissed the O.A.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the representation was made by the petitioner under the directions of the Court while dismissing the petition filed against refusal of interim order and, therefore, it was incumbent on the respondents to consider the said aspect and once the said aspect was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the plea was required to be considered and rejection only on the ground that the order dated 14.08.2023 was not challenged by way of amendment, could not be made the basis for such rejection.

9. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the indication made by the 3 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025 Tribunal regarding non challenge to the order dated 14.08.2023 in the O.A. and submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been duly considered and no interference is called for.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. Insofar as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the initial order of transfer is concerned, the Division Bench in Writ A No. 10229 of 2023 (supra) by making determination in paragraph 7 clearly indicated that there was absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the Department in transferring the petitioner from Kanpur to Guntur and that there was no merit in the challenge laid. To the said extent, the matter has attained finality.

12. So far as the ground based on paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Division Bench requiring the petitioner to make a representation is concerned, a look at the order dated 14.08.2023 clearly reveals that while one part of the petitioner's representation pertaining to his medical condition has been adequately dealt with, however, qua his indication of preference in terms of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy, not a word has been indicated as to why the same is not required to be considered and if considered, why he cannot be posted at any of the said places. The said non-consideration is in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 16.06.2023.

13. So far as the determination made by the Tribunal for not going into the said aspect of the order dated 14.08.2023, on account of non-challenge of the said order is concerned, we are of the opinion that once, pursuant to the rejection of the stay application, the petitioner had approached this Court wherein during the pendency of O.A. the direction was given to make a consideration and that order was brought on record of the case, the Tribunal should have considered the aspect of the matter whether the same was in consonance with the directions issued by this Court and non- consideration thereof, cannot be sustained.

14. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. 4 WRIA No. 13612 of 2025

15. The respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 21.06.2023 in relation to requirement of Clause 5.1 of the transfer policy in terms of directions issued by this Court on

16.06.2023 quoted hereinbefore. Needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks. September 18, 2025 Sandeep/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad