Court directs consideration of inter-district transfer request on security and humanitarian grounds.

The applicant, Mudasar Parveen, initially engaged as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher in District Anantnag, was subsequently regularized and placed in Teacher Grade-II.

Due to her husband's involvement in public and political activities, her family faced hostility from inimical elements, leading to credible security threat inputs from security agencies and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who advised her to relocate from District Anantnag.

Consequently, the applicant, with her minor children, shifted her residence to Srinagar, but she continues to be posted in District Anantnag, necessitating daily travel and exposing her to potential security risks.

She submitted several representations for inter-district transfer to Srinagar, which were verified and recommended by the CID, J&K, confirming a genuine security threat.

The Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, forwarded her service particulars and no-objection certificate to the Directorate of School Education Kashmir, which, in turn, forwarded the case to the Administrative Department via communication dated 27.09.2025 for appropriate orders.

Despite these recommendations and verifications, the matter remained pending without a final decision.

The Directorate of School Education Kashmir subsequently referred the matter again to the Administrative Department on 26.11.2025 for instructions.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal should direct the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's request for inter-district transfer/adjustment from District Anantnag to District Srinagar on verified security and humanitarian grounds?

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear applications seeking appropriate directions.

The core principle applied was that an administrative authority, particularly respondent No. 1 (Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department), has a duty to consider representations and take a reasoned decision in accordance with law and relevant rules, especially when recommendations and security verifications support the request.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a valid basis for seeking transfer due to verified security threats to her and her family, as confirmed by security agencies and the CID, J&K.

Despite multiple recommendations from various departments, including the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, and the Directorate of School Education Kashmir, the competent authority (Administrative Department, respondent No. 1) had not rendered a final decision.

Counsel for the respondents conceded that the matter of inter-district transfer falls within the Administrative Department's competence and acknowledged that the Directorate of School Education Kashmir had already referred the matter to respondent No. 1 multiple times.

Given the limited prayer made by the applicant's counsel—to direct respondent No. 1 to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide it within a stipulated time—the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to issue such a direction.

This approach ensures that the competent authority fulfills its duty to consider the applicant's humanitarian and security concerns and renders a reasoned decision, which is a procedural fairness requirement.

The court directed respondent No. 1 to treat the Original Application and its annexures as a representation and accord due consideration to the assertions, averments, and relevant documents, including security verification and earlier recommendations.

Respondent No. 1 is ordered to pass a detailed and reasoned order within two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the order, and this decision must be communicated to the applicant immediately and also placed before the Tribunal.

The applicant was also granted liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 2, who shall similarly consider it and take a reasoned decision within two weeks, communicating it to the applicant and the Tribunal.

There was no order as to costs.