Subsequent posting renders the original posting relief infructuous but preserves claims for antedated seniority.

The applicant joined CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad as Junior Secretariat Assistant on 19 July 2016 and was promoted as Senior Secretariat Assistant with effect from 1 January 2020. He was also appointed Assistant Section Officer on an ad-hoc basis and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

Pursuant to the CSIR notification dated 22 December 2023 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Section Officer through LDCE-2024, he applied through proper channel and indicated preferences confined to Hyderabad laboratories: CSIR-IICT, CSIR-CCMB and CSIR-NGRI.

Although selected on merit, he was promoted as ASO (General) and posted to CSIR-NIIST, Thiruvananthapuram, by order dated 23 July 2024, contrary to his stated preferences.

His representation seeking posting at any Hyderabad organisation was rejected by order dated 29 August 2024, on the ground that requests for retention or change of posting had been disposed of and the empanelled officers were required to join their notified stations.

The applicant alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, relying on revised posting orders issued in favour of five other officers and on the existence of vacancies at CSIR-CCMB, CSIR-IICT and CSIR-NGRI, Hyderabad.

The respondents contended that the revised postings were made on medical grounds, particularly in cases involving persons with disabilities, and that an employee has no vested right to a particular place of posting.

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant was subsequently promoted and posted to CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad, on 29 December 2025, where he joined under protest and without prejudice to his rights.

Whether the applicant was entitled to quashing of the order dated 29 August 2024 rejecting his request for posting at a Hyderabad laboratory, on the alleged grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicant could claim posting at a station or laboratory of his preference as a matter of enforceable right, particularly when other officers had received revised posting orders.

Whether, in view of the applicant’s subsequent posting at CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad, the relief seeking posting at Hyderabad had become infructuous, while leaving open claims relating to antedating of posting, seniority, wages or other consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied the general administrative-law principle that an employee does not possess a vested right to be posted at a particular place or to obtain a posting according to personal preference, subject to the requirement that administrative action must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

The applicant’s challenge was founded on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which require equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment.

No specific statutory rule, service regulation or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s principal relief was a direction for posting at Hyderabad, but that he had subsequently been posted to CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad, on 29 December 2025 and had joined there under protest.

Consequently, the immediate dispute concerning posting at Hyderabad no longer required adjudication and the corresponding relief had become infructuous.

The Tribunal did not finally determine the allegations of discrimination arising from the revised postings of other officers, nor did it decide whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective seniority, wages or antedating of his posting.

Instead, it preserved those claims by permitting the applicant to submit a comprehensive representation supported by the relevant rules and case law.

The respondents were required to decide that representation through a reasoned and speaking order after granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

The OA was disposed of without finally deciding the applicant’s claims regarding antedating of posting, seniority, wages or other consequential reliefs.

The applicant was granted liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority within fifteen days of receiving the order.

The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing, within thirty days thereafter and in accordance with law.

The directions were issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.