Transfer orders issued mid-academic session must consider officer representations regarding children's education before repatriation.

The applicant, an Appraiser (Group 'B') in the Delhi Customs Zone since 2021, challenged a transfer order dated 06.05.2026 directing his repatriation to his parent zone in Kolkata

The applicant submitted that he had responded to a circular dated 09.04.2026, which allowed officers on outstation postings to request a one-year extension

He sought this extension via a representation dated 15.04.2026 on the grounds that his daughter is currently in Class XII (Science stream), and the transfer occurred mid-academic session

He contended that Respondent No. 4 issued the repatriation order without duly considering his representation or the educational grounds recognized by the department's own policy

1. Whether the respondent authority (Respondent No. 4) failed to consider the applicant's representation for extension of outstation posting in light of the departmental circular and the educational needs of his ward.

2. Whether the impugned transfer order should be stayed pending a fresh decision on the applicant's representation.

The Tribunal relied on the department's Establishment Circular dated 09.04.2026, specifically Clause 4(iii), which permits officers on outstation postings to seek a one-year extension

The transfer policy recognizes educational grounds as a valid consideration for retention/extension

The Tribunal also cited the precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of School Education, Madras and Others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and Another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, which generally discourages transfers in the middle of an academic session

The Tribunal observed that although the applicant had submitted a timely representation on 15.04.2026 in response to the official circular, the authority (Respondent No. 4) appeared to have issued the repatriation order on 06.05.2026 without "due consideration" or "proper perspective" of the applicant's request

The Tribunal noted that the policy itself provides a mechanism for extensions and emphasizes educational interests, yet these factors were not reflected in the impugned order

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the matter required a remand to ensure the administrative authority exercised its discretion reasonably and in accordance with its own guidelines

The Tribunal ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, as it pertains to the applicant's repatriation, shall remain stayed until the decision on the representation is taken