Failure to join the allotted promotional post defeats restoration or preferred posting claims, despite humanitarian grounds.

The applicant, a Primary Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), qualified in the LDCE-2022 for promotion to Head Mistress and was placed in the main panel.

She was promoted by memorandum dated 14.09.2023 and posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Panna, Madhya Pradesh.

She did not join there, relying on her mother’s end-stage chronic renal failure, need for regular dialysis in Delhi, and the applicant’s asserted role as her primary caregiver.

KVS extended the joining period three times, ultimately up to 07.03.2024, but she did not join the promotional post.

KVS consequently withdrew her promotion on 07.06.2024.

Separately, the applicant was transferred from Delhi to KV STPS, Suratgarh, Rajasthan, in the 2024 transfer exercise.

Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable right to modification of the place of posting attached to her promotion, and consequently to restoration of promotion after failing to join at the allotted station despite repeated extensions?

Whether withdrawal of the promotion without a separate oral hearing violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether retention of the applicant’s name in the revised panel and subsequent promotion of reserve-panel candidates established discrimination or entitled her to promotion?

Whether the applicant’s transfer from Delhi to Suratgarh was arbitrary, punitive, mala fide, or contrary to the applicable KVS transfer policy?

The Tribunal applied the principle that promotion and posting are governed by applicable service rules and administrative requirements, and an employee has no vested or enforceable right to demand posting at a particular station or to secure modification of a posting made with promotion.

The express conditions of the promotion offer, including that requests for change of posting would not ordinarily be entertained, were enforceable when read with the applicant’s failure to join even after three extensions.

Withdrawal for non-joining, absent misconduct, adverse findings, or punitive consequences, does not necessarily require a prior disciplinary hearing where the employee had already made repeated representations and the relevant circumstances were known to the administration.

Inclusion in a revised panel does not create an unconditional or indefeasible right to appointment after non-compliance with the earlier promotion offer.

Transfers may be made under the applicable KVS policy and objective criteria, and interference requires material showing mala fides, punitive intent, or violation of policy.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s mother was seriously ill and that the applicant had genuine humanitarian concerns, but held that sympathy did not create a legal right to insist upon Delhi as the place of posting.

The promotion order specified Panna and the applicant was given three extensions, ultimately until 07.03.2024, yet did not join.

Her repeated representations demonstrated that her case had been placed before the competent authorities; therefore, withdrawal of the promotion for non-joining was treated as an administrative consequence of failure to comply with the promotion terms rather than a disciplinary punishment requiring a separate hearing.

The later revised panel could not revive a promotion already withdrawn, and accommodation of reserve-panel candidates did not establish discrimination without proof that they were similarly situated and appointed contrary to procedure.

Regarding the transfer, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s long tenure at Delhi, the stated displacement count, the online transfer process, and prior consideration of her representation; in the absence of proof of mala fides, punitive intent, or policy violation, it declined to interfere.

It also declined to interfere with her transfer to Suratgarh.

However, as the non-joining was not attributed to misconduct, lack of qualification, adverse service record, or fraud, the respondents were directed not to treat withdrawal of the promotion as termination or cessation of her service as Primary Teacher.

She was permitted to continue in that cadre, subject to applicable service rules and normal transfer and posting requirements.

Her past service was not to be treated as interrupted, while any leave-without-pay or absence was to be regularised in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.