Judicial Review Cannot Mandate Executive Policy Formulation or Overrule High Court Precedents Validating Deputation Guidelines

The respondents are employees of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IAAD) under the Comptroller Auditor General of India (CAGI).

They were on deputation at stations where their spouses were posted. Per a 2025 Deputation Policy, they were repatriated to parent postings after completing seven years.

The respondents challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which, by judgment dated 15 April 2026, disapproved of the 2025 Policy, ordered its reconsideration on specific lines, and stayed the repatriations.

During the pendency of this writ petition filed by the CAGI, the respondents joined their parent postings.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in disapproving the 2025 Deputation Policy and directing its reconsideration despite a contrary ruling by the Jharkhand High Court.

2. Whether a Court or Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct the executive to frame or modify a policy along specific lines.

The Court applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and an employee holds no fundamental or indefeasible right to claim a posting of choice.

It relied on SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India [para. 23-27] and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [p. 7], establishing that spousal posting guidelines are subject to administrative exigencies and do not confer legally enforceable rights.

It further followed Adwin Vinifred Tirkey v. Union of India (Jharkhand High Court), which explicitly upheld the validity of the 2025 Policy.

It cited Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam to affirm that courts cannot direct the executive to frame or modify policies.

The Court observed that the CAT failed to follow the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Adwin Vinifred Tirkey, which dealt with the same policy and similar facts.

It held that the CAT, being hierarchically lower, cannot rule contrary to a High Court's judgment without cogent grounds for distinction, which were absent here.

The Court reasoned that the 2025 Policy successfully balanced administrative needs with personal concerns, as already determined in previous litigation.

The Court found that the CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by not only ordering a policy review but also prescribing the specific "lines" and "mechanisms" the revised policy should follow, which violates the separation of powers regarding executive policy-making.

The Court held that the direction to maintain status quo on postings no longer survived as respondents had already joined their parent cadres. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to represent their cases under the DoPT OM dated 30 September 2009.