Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh

Held

The High Court noted that the respondent was serving on a transferable post and that transfer is an exigency of service. However, it also acknowledged the CAT's order which provided protection to the respondent until his daughter completed her examinations, considering the personal difficulty. The Court observed that the examination period (April 2020) had already passed by the time of the judgment. Therefore, at this juncture, there was no cause to judge the legality or otherwise of the original transfer order. The Court disposed of the writ petition, effectively upholding the CAT's decision to allow the respondent to continue at his post until the academic session concluded, as that period had now expired.

Facts

The Union of India, through the Secretary to the Government of India, Revenue Department, Ministry of Finance, and other revenue authorities, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had set aside the transfer order of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the respondent, who was serving as a Superintendent in the Customs (P) Dhubri Division. Mr. Singh's transfer to GST & CE, Aizawl, was challenged on the grounds that his daughter was a Class XI student in Guwahati, and the transfer occurred mid-academic session, with annual examinations scheduled for April. The CAT, considering the potential impact on the daughter's education, had directed that Mr. Singh be allowed to continue at his current post or be accommodated in a vacant post at Guwahati until his daughter's academic session concluded. The Union of India argued that the academic session was over and fresh admissions were taking place.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in setting aside the transfer order of the respondent, Rajesh Kumar Singh, on the grounds of his daughter's ongoing academic session, contrary to the principle that transfer is an exigency of service? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Union of India): Argued that the academic session of the respondent's ward was over, and fresh admissions were underway, thus the CAT's order should be quashed. They also contended that the respondent was serving on a transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service. Respondent (Rajesh Kumar Singh): Relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O. Karuppa Thevan (supra), which held that transfer of an employee during mid-academic term is not proper unless exigencies of service are urgent. The CAT's order was based on this precedent.