Transfer and deputation claims shall be considered as representations under applicable service rules.

The applicant, Nazir Ahmad Ganai, challenged Government Order No. 22-JK (HP) of 2024 dated 24 December 2024, by which his claim for transfer, adjustment or deputation to the Department of Hospitality and Protocol was rejected.

The dispute arose from the appointment of the private respondent, Puneet Kour, as Assistant Housekeeper in 1999 and her subsequent transfer with the post to the Hospitality and Protocol Department in 2003.

The applicant had earlier challenged the appointment before the High Court. Although the Single Bench initially directed his appointment by transfer while leaving the private respondent undisturbed, the Division Bench subsequently modified that direction on 27 February 2024.

Pursuant thereto, the General Administration Department advised examination of the applicant’s eligibility for transfer or deputation against the post of Assistant Housekeeper.

During the pendency of O.A. No. 89 of 2025, the Tribunal permitted consideration of the applicant’s case under Government Order No. 137-JK (GAD) of 2023 concerning inter-departmental deputation based on technical or professional qualifications.

Following contempt proceedings, the respondents passed Government Order No. 1219-JK (GAD) of 2025 dated 17 September 2025, again rejecting the claim, which was challenged in O.A. No. 1231 of 2025.

During arguments, it was submitted that the applicant had superannuated. The applicant therefore requested that both original applications be treated as representations.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for transfer, adjustment or deputation to the Hospitality and Protocol Department was liable to be quashed for being contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules, the High Court’s directions and the relevant deputation policy?

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the applicant appointment or direct creation of a supernumerary post, or instead require the competent authority to reconsider his claim in accordance with law?

Whether, in view of the applicant’s superannuation, the two original applications should be treated as representations and disposed of accordingly?

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative matters, including transfer, deputation and creation or sanction of posts, primarily fall within the domain of the executive, and judicial or tribunal interference is limited.

However, administrative action may be reviewed where it is arbitrary or contrary to law.

The Tribunal also applied the directions of the High Court’s Division Bench dated 27 February 2024, under which the applicant’s appointment could be considered against a suitable vacancy only if the applicable rules permitted it and the applicant made an appropriate application.

The relevant Recruitment Rules governing eligibility, availability of vacancy and the prescribed mode of recruitment, together with Government Order No. 137-JK (GAD) of 2023 concerning inter-departmental deputation, were required to be considered by the competent authority.

No vested right to appointment or to creation of a supernumerary post was recognized.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had repeatedly sought entry into the Hospitality and Protocol Department, but that his claim remained subject to the Recruitment Rules, the existence of a suitable vacancy and the limitations imposed by the Division Bench judgment.

The respondents had rejected the claim on the basis of alleged ineligibility, absence of vacancy and the rule prescribing promotion as the mode of recruitment.

Although the applicant relied on his hotel-management diploma, protocol experience and the deputation policy, the Tribunal did not finally determine his eligibility or the validity of the respondents’ interpretation of the applicable rules.

Since the applicant had superannuated, the substantive reliefs had become infructuous or practically incapable of direct implementation.

At the applicant’s request, the Tribunal therefore adopted the narrower course of treating both O.A.s as representations, leaving all questions of fact and law open for determination by the competent authority.

Instead, it disposed of O.A. No. 89 of 2025 and the connected O.A. No. 1231 of 2025 by directing the respondents to treat both applications as representations and to reconsider the applicant’s claim strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

The competent authority was directed to pass a detailed, speaking and reasoned order within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

All questions of fact and law were expressly left open.