Authorities must decide district-cadre transfer representations under Rule 23 before disturbing the employee.

The applicant was selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board as a Driver against a District Cadre post in Shopian and appointed in the Transport Department in 2015.

He was later posted to the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Shopian.

By order dated 24 September 2026, the Transport Commissioner transferred him from ARTO Shopian to the Transport Commissioner’s office against a State Cadre post.

The applicant challenged the transfer, asserting that it violated Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, and Order No. 230 of 2021/PSY dated 23 February 2022.

He had submitted a representation seeking revocation of the transfer; the judgment records its date as 25 September 2026 in paragraph 6, but refers to a representation dated 29 May 2026 in the final direction.

At the hearing, counsel stated that the applicant would be satisfied with a direction requiring consideration of the representation under Rule 23.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from a District Cadre post in Shopian to a State Cadre post was contrary to Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the legality of the transfer on the merits or direct the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation.

Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 provides that a member of a State, Divisional, or District Cadre is transferable only within that member’s own cadre and may not be transferred between the specified cadres.

The applicant also relied on Order No. 230 of 2021/PSY dated 23 February 2022, which he said imposed a prohibition on inter-district appointments, postings, and transfers of District Cadre staff; the Tribunal did not separately determine the scope or effect of that Order.

The Tribunal did not decide whether the impugned transfer violated Rule 23 or the cited Order.

Instead, noting counsel’s request for a limited direction, it disposed of the OA without entering into the merits and required the respondents to consider the representation in light of Rule 23, subject to the applicant’s entitlement and any impediment.

The order therefore left the transfer’s legality for the respondents to address in a reasoned decision.

It directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation referred to in paragraph 9, in light of Rule 23 and subject to the applicant’s entitlement, within two weeks of receiving a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The applicant was not to be disturbed until that speaking order was passed; no order as to costs was made.