Guidelines for spouse-ground postings do not confer a legally enforceable right to a specific station.

The applicant, a Senior Personal Secretary (SPS) at the Institute of Technology Management (ITM), Mussoorie, under the DRDO, challenged the rejection of his representations (dated 01.02.2024 and 12.08.2024) seeking a transfer to Dehradun.

The applicant had previously served at ITM Mussoorie from 1995 to 2000, followed by a 23-year tenure at IRDE Lab, Dehradun until November 2023.

Upon promotion to SPS, he was transferred back to Mussoorie due to a shortage in the Stenographer cadre.

The applicant sought transfer to Dehradun on "spouse grounds," as his wife is a Section Officer in Dehradun, and on compassionate grounds involving his elderly mother and daughters.

The respondents rejected the claim via an impugned order dated 22.10.2025, citing administrative exigencies and the fact that Mussoorie is only 30 km from Dehradun.

1. Whether the transfer of the applicant on promotion and the subsequent rejection of his representation for a choice posting violated the settled transfer policy regarding spouse-ground postings.

2. Whether a government servant has a vested legal right to remain posted at a specific station based on personal hardships or spouse employment.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing judicial review of administrative transfers, noting that transfer is an "incidence of service" under Fundamental Rules 11 and 15.

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), which established that executive guidelines for spouse postings do not confer legally enforceable rights.

Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992), holding that while spouse postings should be facilitated "as far as practicable," they are subject to administrative needs and do not override departmental exigencies.

Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), which restricts judicial interference in transfers unless there is a violation of mandatory statutory rules or proven mala fides.

The Tribunal observed that judicial interference in transfer matters is strictly limited to cases involving violations of statutory rules, lack of jurisdiction, or mala fides.

In this instance, the applicant had already completed a significant tenure of 23 years at his preferred station, Dehradun.

The transfer to Mussoorie was necessitated by "functional requirements" and a "shortage of Steno cadre" following his promotion to SPS.

The Tribunal noted that the distance between the two stations is a mere 30 km, which mitigates the argument of extreme personal hardship.

Applying the Jagjit Singh Mehta precedent, the Bench reasoned that the administrative requirement for the applicant’s services at Mussoorie outweighed his preference for a spouse-based posting.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove any mala fides or breach of statutory provisions, as personal difficulties are matters for administrative consideration rather than judicial correction.

The Bench concluded that the transfer was a normal consequence of promotion and service exigency, and the impugned order of rejection was justified.

The Tribunal affirmed that administrative guidelines for spouse postings are directory, not mandatory, and cannot supersede the operational requirements of the department, especially when the applicant has already spent a major portion of his career at the requested station.