Authorities must examine transfer claims for parity with applicable precedent and issue a reasoned order.

The applicant, Aliya Farooq, a Teacher Grade-II/General Line Teacher, sought transfer or posting against an available sanctioned post at a nearby Government school in Zone Ghat or Zone Doda.

She relied on the judgment dated 20 November 2024 in Jyoti Gupta v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., O.A. No. 161/2023, and contended that, after regularisation and promotion, she could not be denied consideration for transfer merely because her initial RET appointment was school-specific.

She also relied on humanitarian circumstances, including responsibility for her four-year-old child and her elderly mother-in-law suffering from chronic ailments.

The Original Application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

During hearing, the applicant limited her prayer and requested that the O.A. be treated as a representation and decided in accordance with the Jyoti Gupta judgment.

Whether the applicant’s Original Application should be treated as a formal representation for consideration of her claim for transfer or posting in light of Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K & Ors., O.A. No. 161/2023, decided on 20 November 2024.

Whether the respondents should determine if the applicant is similarly situated to the applicant in Jyoti Gupta and, if so, consider granting her the corresponding relief in accordance with law.

Whether the respondents were required to pass a reasoned and communicated order within a prescribed period.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It further applied the principle that a claim for extension of the benefit of a prior judicial decision must be examined by determining whether the claimant is similarly situated in all material respects; if so, the corresponding relief must be considered in accordance with the precedent and applicable law.

The Tribunal relied on its earlier judgment dated 20 November 2024 in Jyoti Gupta v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., O.A. No. 161/2023, as the governing precedent for consideration of the applicant’s claim.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement to transfer, posting, or utilisation of services at any particular school.

In view of the limited prayer made by counsel, it directed the respondents to treat the O.A. itself as a formal representation and to examine whether the applicant was similarly situated to the applicant in Jyoti Gupta.

If such similarity was established in all material aspects, the respondents were required to consider granting the relief claimed in accordance with that judgment and the law.

The Tribunal also required the respondents to issue a speaking order, thereby ensuring that the applicant’s claim and the applicability of the precedent would be assessed through a reasoned administrative decision.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A. as the applicant’s formal representation, examine her case in light of the judgment dated 20 November 2024 in Jyoti Gupta, determine whether she was similarly situated in all respects, and, if so, consider granting the corresponding relief in accordance with law.

A speaking order was to be passed and communicated to the applicant within four weeks.

No order as to costs was made.