Sanjeev Kumar Awasthi vs M/o Defence

1

(Reserved on 20.08.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the _14 day of _October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)



Original Application No. 1042 of 2017
1. Sanjeev Kumar Awasthi aged about 47 years AE (QA) S/o Shri
Girish Chandra Awasthi, R/o H. NO. 196 A/2, Shakti Vihar,
Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208017.
2. Sanjay Dubey aged about 47 years, AE (QA), S/o Late Shrinivas
Dubey, R/o 313/10, Babu Purwa Colony, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.
3. Dr. R. K. Tiwari, aged about 41 years, AE (QA) S/O B.N. Tiwari,
MIG 36Saket Nagar.
4. R.K. Mehrotra aged about 56 years, AE (QA), S/o Late HHN
Mehrotra R/o D 44 Khapra Mohal, Kanpur.
5. Kiran Mishra aged about 54 years, AE (QA), W/o Jai Krishna
Misra, R/o 31-A Murli Daam-4 Flat No.1 Block - C Shyam Nagar
Kanpur 208013.
……….. Applicants.

By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh.


Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Production 136 South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Quality Assurance Government of India
Ministry of Defence Production-DGQA, 308-A, D-I Wing, Sena
Bhawan New Delhi 110011.
3. The ADDL. DGQA(S) Department of Defence Production-DGQA
Q-Block New Delhi.
4. Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance
Establishment DGQA Complex, Napier Road, Kanpur Cantt-
208004.
Shakuntala Singh

2

5. Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (T & C), Ashok
Path, Kanpur.
6. Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (GS), Ashok
Path, Kanpur.
……….. Respondents.


By Advocates: Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh/Ms. Karishma Singh.

Order
The applicants have approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking,
inter alia, quashing of the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer
Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders
issued pursuant thereto, and for protection of the applicants at
their respective places of posting. The reliefs prayed for by the
applicant are as under:-
“(i) Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the
order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.3
and movement orders dated 04.08.2017, 11.08.2017,
14.08.2017, 17.08.2017 & 10.08.2017 passed by the
concerned authorities only in respect of the applicants.

(ii) Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of
the applicants at their respective place of posting.

(iii) Issue any other and further writ, order or directions;
which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant.”
2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record,
are that the applicants, namely, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Awasthi, Shri
Sanjay Dubey, Dr. R.K. Tiwari, Shri R.K. Mehrotra and Smt. Kiran
Mishra, were working as Assistant Engineers (Quality
Assurance) in the Technical Cadre at different establishments of
the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), Kanpur.
The applicants have challenged the Rotational Posting/Transfer
Order dated 20.07.2017 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby
Shakuntala Singh

3

they were transferred from Kanpur to different stations,
including New Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai, as also the
consequential movement orders dated 04.08.2017, 10.08.2017,
11.08.2017, 14.08.2017 and 17.08.2017. The applicants’ case is
that they were working on sensitive posts and, under the
Rotational Transfer Policy, staff working on sensitive posts could
be transferred, on completion of the prescribed tenure, to a non-
sensitive post, subject to availability of vacancies. According to
the applicants, instead of transferring them from sensitive to non-
sensitive posts, the impugned order transferred them from
sensitive posts to other sensitive posts. The applicants have also
relied upon the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016
issued by the Ministry of Defence in respect of Group ‘B’
(Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) officials of DGQA,
whichprescribed, inter alia, the tenure and posting/transfer
conditions applicable to such officials. Subsequently, vide
communication dated 28.12.2016, the DGQA clarified the
position regarding the Posting/Transfer Policy in respect of
Group ‘B’ officials, keeping the policy in abeyance with regard
to Non-Technical Group ‘B’ officials, while the applicants
contend that the said clarification did not exclude the Technical
Cadre. The applicants have also referred to the orders passed in
O.A. No. 170/00150/2017 and O.A. No. 364/2017 before the
Bangalore Bench, O.A. No. 486/2017 before the Bombay Bench,
O.A. No. 2791/2017 before the Principal Bench, and O.A. No.
956/2017 before the Allahabad Bench, involving similarly
situated employees, and have claimed similar protection on the
basis thereof. The applicants therefore contend that the
impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017
and the consequential movement orders are contrary to the
applicable policy and instructions.
Shakuntala Singh

4

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 is
contrary to the applicable transfer policy. He submitted that the
applicants were working on sensitive posts as Assistant
Engineers (QA) at SQAE (GS), Kanpur and, under the
Government of India policy dated 07.03.1988, an employee
working on a sensitive post, upon completion of the prescribed
tenure, was required to be transferred to a non-sensitive post,
preferably in another establishment at the same station and,
failing availability of such a post, to an outside station, whereas
the applicants had been transferred from their existing sensitive
posts pursuant to the impugned order. Learned counsel further
submitted that the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated
24.11.2016 issued by the Ministry of Defence was also required
to be followed by the Technical Directorates of DGQA. He
contended that the subsequent action of the respondents in
issuing the impugned transfer and movement orders was
inconsistent with the aforesaid policy provisions. He also placed
reliance upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore
Bench in O.A. No. 170/00150/2017 dated 05.05.2017 and in O.A.
No. 364/2017 dated 24.07.2017, as well as the order passed by
the Hon’ble CAT,BombayBench in O.A. No. 486/2017,in support
of the applicants’claim for protection from the consequential

movement pursuant to the rotational transfer order.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the impugned Rotational Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017
was issued in accordance with the applicable Posting/Transfer
Policy of DGQA and the subsequent amendments thereto. He
submitted that the applicants have no vested right to remain
posted at a particular place and that transfer is an incidence of
service. He further submitted that the revised policy was legally
Shakuntala Singh

5

and administratively valid and had been framed after
considering the representations received from the concerned
associations. He further submitted that the subsequent
communications issued in connection with the revised Rotational
Transfer Policy, including the communication dated 28.12.2016,
were required to be considered in their proper perspective and
did not confer any general exemption from the rotational transfer
policy upon all Group ‘B’ officials. Reliance was also placed upon
the orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal in similar
matters, wherein challenges to rotational transfer orders were
dismissed.
5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that the
revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016 applicable to
Group ‘B’ Gazetted and Non-Gazetted officials of DGQA
superseded the earlier policy dated 20.05.2011 and was
subsequently amended through various orders dated
20.12.2016, 10.02.2017, 02.05.2017 and 26.05.2017. It was stated
that the revised policy prescribed the tenure and rotational
transfer requirements and that the applicants were liable to be
transferred in accordance with the said policy. The respondents
further relied upon the dismissal of several similar Original
Applications by different Benches of the Tribunal and upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that transfer is
ordinarily an incidence of service and that interference is
warranted only in cases of violation of statutory provisions or
established mala fides.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have reiterated the
averments made in the Original Application and denied the
contrary assertions made in the counter affidavit. It has been
stated that the respondents have misconstrued the applicable
transfer policies and that the impugned transfer order dated
Shakuntala Singh

6

20.07.2017 is contrary to the Government guidelines dated
07.03.1988, particularly the provisions relating to transfer of
employees working on sensitive posts. The applicants have
contended that, after completion of tenure on a sensitive post,
the employee was required to be considered for a non-sensitive
post, preferably at the same station, and that the applicants were
instead transferred to different stations. It has further been
contended that the revised RTP dated 24.11.2016 was applicable
to Group ‘B’ Gazetted and Non-Gazetted officials and that the
respondents could not rely upon the said policy in a manner
discriminatory to the applicants. The applicants also referred to
the rotational transfer orders and asserted that their cases were
similarly situated to other employees who had obtained relief
from the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a
supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain subsequent
and relevant developments. It has been stated that the applicants
are working on sensitive posts as Assistant Engineers (QA) at
SQAE (GS), Kanpur and that, under the applicable policy, an
employee working on a sensitive post can be transferred only to
a non-sensitive post. The applicants have relied upon the
communication dated 21.04.2017 regarding rotation of officers
and staff holding sensitive posts and the subsequent
clarification/identification of sensitive posts. It has further been
stated that the respondents had issued transfer/movement
orders dated 20.07.2017 and 04.08.2017, 11.08.2017, 14.08.2017,
17.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 despite the applicants having
submitted representations against the same. The applicants have
also brought on record the DGQA communication dated
27.08.2018, wherein the policy was stated to be deficient and the
need for better policies was acknowledged, as well as the
Shakuntala Singh

7

minutes of the 22nd Main Meeting of the JCM III Level Council of
DGQA dated 18.07.2018, wherein the issue of
amendments/incorporation in the RTP was discussed. On the
basis of these subsequent developments, it has been contended
that the impugned transfer order and consequential movement
orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon
the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
1010 of 2017 and other orders passed by different Benches of the
Tribunal in similar matters, and further placed reliance upon the
judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 170 of 2026,
whereby the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Tribunal was
set aside and O.A. No. 363 of 2023 was remanded back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration. Learned counsel submitted that
the applicants’ cases are similarly situated and that the
impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2017 and consequential
movement orders, being contrary to the applicable Rotational
Transfer Policy, are liable to be interfered with.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that, in
the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, it has
been specifically stated that the impugned Rotational Transfer
Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential movement orders
dated 04.08.2017, 10.08.2017, 11.08.2017, 14.08.2017 and
17.08.2017 were issued in respect of the applicants, who are
working as Assistant Engineers (Quality Assurance) in the
Technical Cadre. He further submitted that the case of the
applicants is required to be considered in the light of the
applicable Posting/Transfer Policy and the provisions relating to
rotational transfer of officials working on sensitive posts. Learned
counsel further placed reliance upon the earlier orders passed
Shakuntala Singh

8

by different Benches of the Tribunal in similar matters and
submitted that the applicants are similarly situated and,
therefore, the impugned transfer order and the consequential
movement orders are liable to be interfered with.
10. I have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicants, and Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh along with Ms.
Karishma Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, at length
and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and

material available on record.

11. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the written
submissions and the material available on record, the principal
issue which arises for consideration is whether the applicants
have made out any legally sustainable ground for interference
with the Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and
the consequential movement orders. The applicants have
principally challenged the transfer on the ground that they were
working on sensitive posts and that the transfer was not in
conformity with the Posting/Transfer Policy dated 07.03.1988 and
the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016, as
amended from time to time. They have also relied upon orders
passed by coordinate Benches in respect of other employees
covered by the same rotational transfer exercise. The aforesaid
contentions are required to be examined in the light of the
relevant policy documents, subsequent amendments and the
decisions relied upon by the parties.
12. The applicants have challenged the impugned Rotational
Posting/Transfer Order dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential
movement orders on the ground that the same are contrary to
the applicable Rotational Transfer Policy. The revised
Posting/Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2016, relating to Group ‘B’
Shakuntala Singh

9

(Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) officials of DGQA, has been placed
on record as Annexure A-4. Subsequently, vide communication
dated 28.12.2016, the policy was kept in abeyance in respect of
Non-Technical Group ‘B’ officials. Thereafter, the Ministry of
Defence issued an amendment order dated 10.02.2017, placed
on record as Annexure SA-3, whereby various provisions of the
policy dated 24.11.2016 were amended. The said order records
that, after issuance of the original policy, various representations
had been received from different quarters seeking amendments
to the policy and that, after consideration of those
representations and with the approval of the competent
authority, amendments were being made to the Rotational
Transfer Policy. The relevant portion of the order dated
10.02.2017 is quoted below:-
“……………..Rotational Transfer Policy on deployment of
Group B (Gazetted/Non Gazetted) officials, viz., Technical and
Non-technical in Directorate General of Quality Assurance
(DGQA) has been issued vide Department of Defence
Production's Order of even no. dt 24.11.2016. After issue of the
above policy, various representations have been received from
different quarters requesting for certain amendments is the
policy. These representations have been considered and with
the approval of the Competent Authority following amendments
are hereby made in the aforesaid Rotational Transfer
Policy…….”
13. The aforesaid amendment order, inter alia, substituted the
normal tenure of Group ‘B’ officials in a post from three years to
five years, deleted paragraph 6 concerning cumulative tenure at
the same station, changed the cut-off date for calculating tenure
from 1 January to 1 July, amended the provision concerning
officials having three years or less remaining before
superannuation, modified the provision relating to retention at a
station on educational grounds for children studying in Classes X
or XII, and amended paragraph 9(b) concerning preference
where more than one official seeks posting at the same station
and adequate vacancies are not available. The policy dated
Shakuntala Singh

10

24.11.2016 is, therefore, required to be read along with the
amendments subsequently introduced by the competent
authority.
14. The respondents have also relied upon orders passed by
different Benches of this Tribunal in similar matters. In this
regard, O.A. No. 170/00364/2017, titled DQA Group ‘B’ Technical
Officers Association v. Union of India & Others , was decided by the
Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal on 17.10.2017.While
considering the challenge to the Rotational Transfer Policy, 2016,
the Bangalore Bench observed in paragraph 14 as under:-
“14. On detailed consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of the discussions
made in the preceding paras, we are of the view that the new
Rotational Transfer Policy 2016 which was issued by the
respondents in November, 2016 cannot be questioned only
because the non-technical cadres were taken out of the
purview of the said transfer policy. The earlier transfer policy of
2011 was applicable only to scientific and technical persons
only and hence the new transfer policy continues to be
applicable to those categories only. Simply because the non-
technical cadre was excluded will not vitiate the Rotational
Transfer Policy. On going through the new Rotational Transfer
Policy-2016, we also did not find anything which would
necessitate interference of this Tribunal in the matter.
Therefore, we hold that the contention made by the applicants
in the present OA does not merit any consideration and hence
the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
15. The aforesaid decision supports the validity of the
Rotational Transfer Policy, 2016 against a challenge founded
merely upon the exclusion of Non-Technical cadres from its
purview. The applicants’ specific grievance concerning transfer
from sensitive posts to other sensitive posts, however, falls to
beconsidered on the basis of the policy provisions and the
material available in the present case.
16. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and
that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted
at a particular place of his choice. In Rajendra Singh & Others v.
Shakuntala Singh

11

State of U.P. & Others , (2009) 15 SCC 178, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“A Government Servant has no vested right to remain
posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must
be posted at one place or the other.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & Others v.
Gobardhan Lal , (2004) 11 SCC 402, has further held as under:-
“Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers
or containing transfer policies at best may afford an
opportunity to the officer or servant concerned for redress
but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying
the competent authority to transfer a particular
officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found
necessitated by exigencies of service.”
18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Tribunal finds that the applicants have not established
that the impugned Rotational Posting/Transfer Order dated
20.07.2017 was issued by an incompetent authority, was actuated
by mala fides, or violated any statutory provision governing their
service. The applicants’ reliance upon the policy instructions
dated 07.03.1988 and the revised Posting/Transfer Policy dated
24.11.2016, as amended by the order dated 10.02.2017,
including the provisions relating to employees working on
sensitive posts, has been considered. The subsequent
communications and deliberations relied upon by the applicants,
including the communication dated 21.04.2017, the DGQA
communication dated 27.08.2018 and the JCM III Level Council
minutes dated 18.07.2018, do not establish that the competent
authority was legally prohibited from issuing the impugned
rotational transfer orders. In the absence of any established
statutory violation, mala fide exercise of power or other legally
sustainable ground, this Tribunal cannot substitute its own
assessment for that of the competent administrative authority in
matters of posting and transfer.
Shakuntala Singh

12

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original
Application is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands
vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (J)


/Shakuntala/

Shakuntala Singh