A transfer challenge becomes infructuous when the impugned order is cancelled and superseded by fresh posting.

The Applicant was appointed as an LDC on 22.09.2011 and was serving in 756 (I) Transportation Platoon, ASC, Chennai. She had earlier been transferred to Siliguri but sought cancellation on medical and compassionate grounds, including her spinal condition, her father’s death and her aged mother’s illness. Pursuant to an earlier order of the Tribunal in OA No.1034/2021, she submitted a representation seeking retention at Chennai.

By order dated 28.06.2024, the Respondents transferred her to the Officers Training Academy, Chennai, with seniority to be reckoned from the date of joining the new unit. The Applicant objected that this would deprive her of her existing seniority. She was subsequently granted in-situ promotion as UDC with effect from 23.08.2024, but the Respondents continued to seek implementation of the earlier transfer order issued when she was an LDC.

Her further representations seeking posting at Tirunelveli, Virudhunagar or Madurai were returned by order dated 15.10.2025. The 4th Respondent thereafter issued a Movement Order dated 18.02.2026 directing her to move. The Applicant challenged both orders under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking cancellation of the transfer, retention or posting as UDC at a preferred station, and consequential service benefits.

During the proceedings, the Applicant stated that she was willing to join at any transferred place, provided she was transferred as a UDC. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction dated 17.06.2026, the earlier transfer order was cancelled and a fresh posting order was issued transferring her as UDC to 5104 ASC Battalion (MT), Missamari, Assam, with a consequential Movement Order granting joining time and TA/DA.

1. Whether the orders dated 15.10.2025 and 18.02.2026, relating to the Applicant’s transfer and movement while she was treated as an LDC, were liable to be quashed for failure to consider her promotion as UDC, seniority claim, unwillingness and compassionate representations?

2. Whether the subsequent cancellation of the earlier transfer order and issuance of a fresh posting order as UDC rendered the Original Application infructuous?

3. Whether the Applicant could continue to challenge the earlier transfer after representing before the Tribunal that she was willing to join at any transferred station as a UDC and after the Respondents acted upon that representation?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved public servant to challenge a service-related order before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the procedural and remedial principle that a proceeding may be dismissed as infructuous where subsequent events substantially redress the grievance or remove the challenged order from operative consideration.

It further applied the principle that a party cannot simultaneously rely upon a representation or undertaking seeking a particular administrative action and, after that action is taken, continue to challenge the earlier position on grounds rendered irrelevant by the subsequent development.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s original grievance concerned the implementation of a 2024 transfer order issued when she was an LDC, despite her subsequent in-situ promotion as UDC and her objections regarding seniority and posting.

However, during the proceedings, she expressly stated that she was willing to join at any transferred place as a UDC. Acting on that representation and the Tribunal’s direction, the Respondents cancelled the earlier transfer order and issued a fresh posting order transferring her as a UDC to Assam, together with joining time and TA/DA.

Consequently, the original LDC transfer order was no longer operative, and the Applicant’s principal grievance had been substantially addressed.

The Tribunal held that she could not obtain the benefit of her undertaking that she would accept transfer as a UDC while continuing to challenge the earlier transfer on grounds applicable to her LDC status.

The Original Application was therefore dismissed as having become infructuous.

No order was made as to costs.