Facts
The Applicant, a PGT (Computer Science), challenged his transfer and relieving orders dated 28.07.2025 through OA 849/2025
Source reference: p. 2While the Tribunal initially declined interim relief, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in W.P. No. 30665/2025, granted an interim stay on the transfer pending disposal of the OA
Source reference: p. 2This order was challenged by the Respondents before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 28553/2025.
Source reference: p. 3-4On 21.11.2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, directing the Respondents to post the Applicant at his choice of station (KV Avadi, Tamil Nadu) "till the end of the Academic Session"
Source reference: p. 3-4Following the end of the session, the Respondents issued a relieving order on 30.03.2026, effective 31.03.2026, directing the Applicant to join his original transfer post in West Bengal
Source reference: p. 5The Applicant filed this Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to stay the 30.03.2026 relieving order, arguing that the High Court’s stay remained operational
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the interim stay granted by the Madras High Court remains operational following the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in the SLP
Source reference: p. 5, para 7-92. Whether the relieving order dated 30.03.2026 is legally sustainable under the Doctrine of Merger
Source reference: p. 6-7, para 11-13Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the Doctrine of Merger, which dictates that when an order passed by a lower court is challenged before a superior court and the superior court disposes of the matter (with or without reasons), the lower court's order merges into the superior court's order
Source reference: p. 6, para 11It relied on Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359], which established that once an appeal is disposed of by the Supreme Court, the High Court judgment merges with it
Source reference: p. 7, para 12It further cited Gangadhara Palo v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others [(2011) SC], holding that even if the Supreme Court provides minimal reasons while dismissing or disposing of an SLP, the lower court’s judgment merges and ceases to exist independently
Source reference: p. 7, para 13Reasoning
The Applicant contended that the Madras High Court’s stay was still valid as the OA was pending
Source reference: p. 5However, the Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had specifically modified the interim arrangement by directing the Applicant’s posting at KV Avadi only until the end of the academic session (31.03.2026)
Source reference: p. 3-4The Tribunal reasoned that under the Doctrine of Merger, the High Court’s interim stay "ceased to have independent existence" once the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP with specific directions
Source reference: p. 6, para 11Since the Respondents issued the relieving order exactly upon the expiry of the period permitted by the Supreme Court, the order was deemed a lawful implementation of the apex court’s mandate
Source reference: p. 8, para 14Holding
The Tribunal held that the relieving order dated 30.03.2026 was in strict accordance with the Supreme Court's directions and that the High Court’s stay had merged into the Supreme Court’s order
Finding no grounds for interference, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for stay
Source reference: p. 8, para 14The original OA was listed for further hearing on 09.04.2026
Source reference: p. 8, para 15Original Court PDF
PREM KUMAR SINGHvsKVS AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in