A vacancy creates no vested right to claim transfer to that station.

The applicant, a Senior Accounts Officer, was transferred from Lucknow to Kanpur by order dated 14 June 2024.

After his representation was rejected by a reasoned order dated 25 July 2024, he joined at Kanpur and later sought posting to a vacant Senior Accounts Officer post at Lucknow.

The respondents stated that the sanctioned strength at Lucknow had been reduced from four officers to three, requiring one officer to be transferred out; the applicant was selected based on his tenure, and Kanpur was the nearest available station in the same Central Zone.

The applicant filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking transfer to Lucknow.

Whether the applicant had a legal right to be transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow because a Senior Accounts Officer post was vacant there.

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the applicant’s transfer from Lucknow to Kanpur on the grounds raised.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for bringing an application before the Tribunal.

Under Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, a Tribunal is not an appellate authority over transfer decisions and should not substitute its judgment for that of the competent authority.

Under Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC 245, transfer is an incident and condition of service; courts and tribunals ordinarily should not interfere unless the transfer is mala fide or violates a statutory provision.

An employee has no vested right to be posted at a particular station, and the filling of a vacancy and selection of an officer for it fall within the competent authority’s administrative discretion.

The respondents gave an administrative reason for transferring the applicant: the reduction in sanctioned strength at Lucknow required one officer to be moved, and the applicant was selected based on his tenure after another officer was excluded under the transfer policy.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the transfer was made by an incompetent authority, was mala fide, or violated a statutory provision.

The later vacancy at Lucknow did not confer a right on the applicant to return there, because the decision whether to fill it and by whom remained with the administration.

It dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs; all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.