Employees have no enforceable right to a posting of their choice.

The applicant, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works (R&B) Department, had been deputed to the Public Health Engineering/I&FC Department and subsequently recalled by his parent department and deputed to the Srinagar Municipal Corporation.

He was thereafter promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on an in-charge basis.

The applicant challenged the departmental order dated 30 April 2021 and corrigendum dated 6 May 2021, seeking their quashing and permission to continue as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Mechanical S&D Left Sub-Division, Srinagar.

He also pleaded that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was consequently prevented from joining his duties.

The CAT Jammu Bench had earlier declined interim relief on 31 May 2021 and directed the respondents to file their reply; however, no reply appeared to have been filed.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to have the impugned corrigendum dated 6 May 2021 and the consequential posting/administrative order set aside.

2. Whether the applicant could claim a right to continue at, or seek posting to, the particular post and place of his choice as Assistant Executive Engineer.

3. Whether the applicant’s plea of having tested COVID-19 positive continued to justify relief after the substantial lapse of time during the pendency of the O.A.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that an employee has no enforceable right to seek a posting of choice and that posting and transfer ordinarily fall within the employer’s discretion, exercised in administrative and public interest.

This principle was supported by E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131; Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445; and Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that a claim based on a temporary circumstance may become infructuous with the passage of time.

The applicant’s challenge substantially sought continuation in, or posting to, a particular assignment.

Applying the settled rule that posting is within the employer’s administrative domain and that an employee cannot insist upon a posting of choice, the Tribunal found no basis to grant the requested relief.

Although the applicant relied on his COVID-19 positive status as the reason for not joining duty, that circumstance had lost practical and legal significance because the matter had remained pending for more than five years; the ground had consequently become infructuous by the time of adjudication.

The absence of a filed reply by the respondents did not alter the Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s entitlement to the relief sought.

O.A. No. 832 of 2021 was accordingly dismissed as infructuous, along with all connected miscellaneous applications, if any.