Redeployment of surplus staff mid-session in violation of transfer policy is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

The applicant, initially posted at a hard station in Ranikhet, was transferred to Bundi on June 25, 2024.

On September 15, 2025, due to school upgradation, the respondent (KVS) declared the applicant "surplus" and subsequently issued a transfer order dated September 23, 2025, moving him from Bundi to Bikaner.

The applicant challenged this on the grounds that the transfer occurred mid-session, violating the KVS transfer policy.

While the Tribunal had earlier stayed the relieving order on October 15, 2025, the applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 188/2026) seeking permission to participate in a fresh redeployment process initiated by the respondents via a letter dated April 10, 2026.

1. Whether the respondent-KVS violated its own transfer policy by declaring the applicant surplus and transferring him during the mid-academic session.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to participate in the fresh redeployment process to exercise choices for available stations at the beginning of the new academic session.

The court primarily applied the KVS Transfer Policy dated 30.06.2023, specifically Clause 2.I.(A) regarding the redeployment of surplus staff.

This policy mandates that KVS "shall carry out the process of redeployment of surplus staff in the beginning of the academic session".

The court relied on the principle of administrative fairness, ensuring that an agency adheres to its own prescribed procedural policies to avoid prejudice to employees.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents admitted their failure to identify surplus staff at the beginning of the academic session, resulting in a mid-session transfer.

This delay adversely affected the applicant because the number of available station choices is significantly higher at the start of a session compared to the middle.

The Tribunal reasoned that since a new redeployment process for 2026 had been initiated via the letter dated April 10, 2026, it would be "just and fair" to allow the applicant to participate in this current cycle.

By quashing the previous transfer order, the court aimed to place the applicant in the position he would have occupied had the policy been followed correctly—allowing him to exercise his options among a full range of available vacancies at the start of the session.

The court directed the respondents to permit the applicant to participate in the ongoing fresh redeployment process and to consider his fresh options for available places of posting in accordance with the law.

Consequently, M.A. 188/2026 was disposed of as infructuous, and no order as to costs was made.