A transfer to a nonexistent post cannot be justified by its later creation.

The applicant, a Senior Administrative Officer Grade-I (SAO-I), was posted at TBRL, Chandigarh from 1 December 2023.

His wife held a non-transferable Assistant Professor position at IIT Ropar, and the couple had two minor children.

In December 2025, the respondents ordered his transfer to the Directorate of Special Projects (DSP), Hyderabad, and rejected his representation against it.

The applicant challenged the transfer and consequential orders, relying on the department’s transfer policy and DoPT instructions concerning spouse postings.

The Tribunal granted interim protection, noting that no SAO-I post existed at DSP when the transfer was ordered.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer to Hyderabad before a corresponding SAO-I post was authorised there was justified as an administrative requirement in the public interest.

2. Whether the transfer was consistent with the departmental transfer policy and the applicable instructions concerning a couple’s posting.

The Tribunal considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicant brought the OA.

It applied the departmental transfer policy, including its provisions for four categories of transfer and Clause 7, which permits an officer to be transferred at any time in the public interest.

The Tribunal treated Clause 7 as requiring a real and apparent administrative emergency, rather than an unsupported assertion of public interest.

It also considered DoPT instructions dated 30 September 2009, 2 July 2015 and 24 November 2022 concerning couple cases, alongside the departmental policy.

The Tribunal referred to Jagjit Singh Mehta for the principle that spouses should be posted at the same station where feasible.

The Tribunal found that the SAO-I post at DSP, Hyderabad was authorised only on 29 July 2026—about eight months after the transfer order—and concluded that the later authorisation did not establish an immediate administrative necessity at the time of transfer.

Although Clause 7 allowed transfers in the public interest, the respondents had not demonstrated the urgency required to rely on it; the explanation appeared to be an ex-post-facto justification.

The applicant had served only about two years at Chandigarh and, on the material before the Tribunal, was not due for transfer under any of the policy’s four categories.

The respondents also did not adequately explain why he was selected when longer-serving or senior officers were available, or why the couple-case instructions could not be accommodated.

It left the respondents free to consider a fresh transfer based on administrative requirements in accordance with the applicable policy.

The OA was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.