Facts
The applicants are Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE) officers promoted to the rank of Chief Engineer (CE) via a panel dated 22.01.2025
Source reference: para. 4They challenged the respondents' decision not to post them as "Chief Engineer Zone" (CE Zone) or "Chief Construction Engineer" (CCE), alleging that junior officers from the 2024 panel (Sh. Pankaj Tyagi and Sh. Sharad Kumar Sharma) were granted such postings despite having less than two years of residual service
Source reference: para. 3, 5Under the Cadre Management Guidelines-2015, a CE Zone/CCE posting typically requires two years of residual service
Source reference: para. 4, 15A 2019 amendment allowed relaxation of this period to 12 months, but only if an insufficient number of eligible officers with two years of residual service were available
Source reference: para. 4, 17The applicants sought a direction to be posted as Zonal CEs by applying the same relaxation criteria used for the 2024 panel officers
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants, substantively holding the post of Chief Engineer, possess a legal or vested right to occupy the specific post of Chief Engineer Zone/CCE.
Source reference: para. 22. Whether the respondents' refusal to relax the two-year residual service requirement for the 2025 panel, while having relaxed it for the 2024 panel, constitutes an illegal or discriminatory action.
Source reference: para. 2, 12Law Applied
Cadre Management of MES Civilian Officers Guidelines (2015), specifically Para 5(b)(v) of Appendix-F, which stipulates a two-year residual service requirement for Zonal CE/CCE postings
Source reference: para. 15Revised Policy (OM dated 07.08.2019), which makes the relaxation of residual service conditional upon the non-availability of sufficient eligible officers
Source reference: para. 15, 17State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma, which held there is no right to a specific duty charge
Source reference: para. 20Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, establishing that transfer is an incident of service and administrative guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights unless statutory provisions are violated or mala fides is proved
Source reference: para. 20Reasoning
The Tribunal analyzed the vacancy statistics provided by the respondents, noting that in 2024, there were 18 vacancies but only 14 officers with the requisite two-year residual service, necessitating the policy relaxation for officers like Sh. Pankaj Tyagi
Source reference: para. 18, 19Conversely, for the 2025 panel (to which the applicants belong), there were only 9 vacancies and 12 eligible officers possessing the full two-year residual service
Source reference: para. 18, 19The court reasoned that since the relaxation is "conditional" and only to be "resorted to only if sufficient number of eligible officers are not there," the respondents were justified in strictly enforcing the two-year rule for the 2025 panel
Source reference: para. 17, 19The court emphasized that organizational interests are supreme in human resource management and that the Tribunal cannot substitute its judgment for administrative discretion in matters of posting and transfer
Source reference: para. 15, 16, 20, 22Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the applicants have no vested, legal, or fundamental right to be posted to specific Zonal CE/CCE positions of their choice
The court concluded that the respondents acted within the scope of the revised Cadre Management Policy, as the conditions for relaxing the residual service requirement were not met for the 2025 panel due to the sufficient availability of eligible officers
Source reference: para. 22, 24No order as to costs was made
Source reference: para. 28Original Court PDF
B Srinivasa RaovsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in