Transfer policy guidelines for surplus employees from disbanded units not applicable.

The applicants, four employees of the Firefighting Wing of the Vehicle Sub Depot (VSD), Delhi Cantt., Ministry of Defence, were transferred from their non-tenure posts in Delhi to Ganganagar and Agra via an order dated May 27, 2023.

They had previously been posted in Leh, Ladakh, and subsequently transferred to a non-tenure post in Delhi on November 30, 2021.

Aggrieved by the transfer, the applicants submitted representations which were rejected by the respondents on July 18, 2023.

The respondents' reasoning for the transfers was that the applicants' unit (CVD, Delhi) had been disbanded on November 18, 2022, rendering them surplus personnel.

The respondents contended that due to non-availability of vacancies within 50 km of Delhi, the juniormost surplus employees, including the applicants, were transferred out, asserting that transfer policy rules regarding tenure/non-tenure postings do not apply to surplus staff.

The applicants argued that their transfer before completing the stipulated six-year tenure at a non-tenure station in Delhi violated the respondents' policy.

They also claimed discrimination, citing other employees retained in Delhi who were neither 57 years old nor transferred from a tenure posted unit.

Additionally, the applicants stated they were not given options for their posting.

Whether the transfer of the applicants from a non-tenure post in Delhi before the expiry of the six-year minimum tenure was in violation of the transfer policy when their unit had been disbanded and they were rendered surplus.

Whether the applicants, as government employees, had a vested right to a posting of their choice or to be retained in Delhi.

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for the relief sought.

It referred to clause 6(d) of the respondents' transfer policy, stating that "Non-Tenure Stations Remaining Army/AOC units where AOC civil persons are authorized on the PE/WE. Minimum prescribed tenure is six years".

Crucially, the court applied clause 10(d) of the transfer policy dated May 10, 2022, which stipulates that general transfer instructions are not applicable to units or establishments to be disbanded, and distribution of employees from disbanded units is guided by the availability of suitable vacancies.

The court also cited clauses 30 and 31 of the transfer policy, granting the Officer-in-Charge AOC Records discretion to order postings in the interest of the organization, without assigning reasons, and making decisions in situations not specifically catered for in the policy.

Furthermore, the court relied on precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court in *S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India* (Civil Appeal No.1243/2022, judgment dated March 10, 2022), *Rajinder Singh and Others v. State of UP and Others* ((2009) 15 SCC 178), and *Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar* ((1991) Supp.2 SCC 659), which collectively establish that employees have no fundamental right to claim transfer or posting of their choice, and postings are governed by exigencies of service.

The court found that the applicants' arguments, centered on the six-year non-tenure posting policy and alleged discrimination, concealed the critical fact that their unit had been disbanded, rendering them surplus.

The court clarified that clause 6(b) of the transfer policy, which sets the minimum six-year tenure, applies to normal transfers, not to the redeployment of surplus staff from disbanded units.

It emphasized that clause 10(d) of the transfer policy specifically overrides general transfer guidelines in cases of disbandment, and the applicants' employment involved All India transfer liability.

The court noted that the respondents had considered the non-availability of suitable vacancies within 50 km of Delhi and that the juniormost employees were transferred out.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the ratio established by the Apex Court in *Rajinder Singh* and *Shilpi Bose*, affirming that government employees have no vested right to postings of their choice and that transfers are subject to service exigencies, was directly applicable to the present case.

It held that the transfer of the applicants was permissible due to the disbandment of their unit, which rendered them surplus.

The court further held that the policy concerning normal tenure postings was superseded by the specific policy for disbanded units, and that the applicants, like other government employees, had no vested right to choose their posting location.

Consequently, the transfer orders dated May 27, 2023, and the rejection of their representations dated July 18, 2023, were upheld.