Administrative exigency of officer shortage cannot justify denial of inter-cadre transfer on marriage grounds.

The applicant, a 2022 batch IPS officer of the West Bengal Cadre, married Ms. Shaloo, a 2021 batch IPS officer of the Karnataka Cadre, on 02.03.2025

Seeking inter-cadre transfer (ICT) to Karnataka on marriage grounds, the applicant submitted representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Government of West Bengal (Respondent No. 2) on 17.03.2025

While the State of Karnataka (receiving cadre) conveyed its "No Objection" on 07.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 failed to respond to the MHA's repeated requests for comments or issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC)

Respondent No. 2 contested the O.A., arguing it was premature under the Administrative Tribunals Act and citing an acute shortage of IPS officers in the state

1. Whether the Original Application is premature under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, due to the non-expiry of the statutory six-month waiting period

2. Whether the State of West Bengal’s inaction and refusal to grant an NOC for inter-cadre transfer on the ground of marriage, citing shortage of officers, is legally sustainable

The court primarily applied Rule 5(2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which permits the Central Government to transfer a cadre officer with the concurrence of the concerned State Governments

It relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11.11.2022, which mandates that efforts should be made to ensure spouses of All India Services (AIS) are posted in the same cadre

The Tribunal further invoked the principle that the "right to family life" is a fundamental incident of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

It followed the precedent set in Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal v. Vaibhav Bangar and Arsh Verma v. State of West Bengal, which established that a "shortage of officers" is not a valid sole ground to indefinitely deny an ICT on marriage grounds

The Tribunal rejected the plea of prematurity, holding that inordinate administrative delay in matters concerning spousal co-location constitutes an exceptional circumstance allowing direct judicial intervention

Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that Respondent No. 2 had repeatedly used the "shortage of officers" defense in several cases, a plea consistently rejected by the Delhi High Court

The Tribunal found the State's data on officer strength to be inconsistent with MHA records, which showed that West Bengal’s deficit was less than many other states

Applying the proportionality test, the Tribunal reasoned that the State’s administrative exigencies cannot override the constitutional right to family life and the policy objective of co-locating married AIS officers

It directed Respondent No. 2 to issue an NOC within two weeks, failing which it shall be deemed to have been issued

Respondent No. 1 (MHA) was directed to pass transfer orders within four weeks thereafter

Respondent No. 2 was ordered to relieve the applicant within two weeks of the MHA's order, failing which he shall be deemed relieved to join the Karnataka Cadre