Transfer order invalid for disregarding the superior authority’s tenure-based selection criterion.

The applicant, a Multi Tasking Staff member posted in Block Khag, challenged the Block Medical Officer’s order relieving him to report to Block Khansahib. The applicant contended that the Chief Medical Officer’s prior direction required transfer of an MTS with the longest or mature stay in the Block, preferably one hailing from the area, and that other MTS employees had longer tenures than he did.

The applicant claimed a six-year tenure; the respondents’ representative stated that his tenure was nine years. The applicant sought to quash the BMO’s order and also sought interim protection.

Whether the BMO’s order relieving the applicant was inconsistent with the CMO’s direction to transfer an MTS with the longest or mature stay in Block Khag.

Whether the impugned order could stand when the BMO had not ascertained which MTS had the longest or mature stay before relieving the applicant.

The Tribunal stated that an employee has no right to be posted at a place of choice and that transfer in public or administrative interest is ordinarily for the competent authority to decide.

It also recognised that the BMO could exercise transfer powers within Block Khag and within the limits of his competence. No statute or precedent was cited. The operative principle was that an authority implementing a superior authority’s transfer direction must act consistently with that direction and cannot select an employee without making the assessment the direction requires.

The Tribunal did not find that the applicant had a right to remain posted at Khag; it accepted that transfers may be made in administrative interest.

It instead examined whether the BMO had implemented the CMO’s direction. Because that direction called for an MTS with the longest or mature stay to be relieved, the BMO was required to ascertain the comparative tenure of the staff before selecting an employee.

The BMO’s order relieved the applicant without that assessment, making it inconsistent with the CMO’s direction and unsustainable. The Tribunal did not determine which employee had the longest stay and left the competent authority free to make a fresh order in accordance with law.

It permitted the competent authority to issue a fresh order in accordance with law, disposed of the OA, and made no order as to costs.