Transfer & Posting Decisions Fall Within Administrative Discretion; CAT Cannot Interdict Them Through Ad-Interim Orders At Preliminary Stage: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, has held that transfer and posting are matters of administrative discretion, and the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot interdict such decisions through ad-interim orders, especially at a preliminary stage of proceedings. The court set aside a tribunal order restraining authorities from posting junior officers over aggrieved senior engineers of the Military Engineer Services.
The petitioners assailed the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at the stage of admission while considering interim relief. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the respondents for posting as Chief Engineer (Zone) in accordance with applicable Office Memoranda and restrained them from posting any junior against the posts in question.
The respondents are officers of the Indian Defence Service of Engineers serving in the Military Engineer Services, Ministry of Defence. Having been promoted as Chief Engineer, they alleged that their names were not forwarded for consideration for posting as Chief Engineer (Zone), while certain juniors were allegedly considered. They approached the Tribunal seeking restraint against posting juniors and a direction for consideration of their cases.
It was not disputed that prior to filing the subsequent application, the respondents had approached the Tribunal seeking consideration of their representations, and the competent authority had been directed to decide the same within four weeks. The petitioners contended that the impugned order interfered with administrative discretion in matters of transfer and posting, whereas the respondents submitted that an application for vacation/modification was pending before the Tribunal.
The Court observed, “The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in passing an ad-interim order restraining the Petitioners from posting juniors to the Respondents and directing consideration of the Respondents’ cases in a particular manner.”
Referring to settled principles, the Court stated, “It is well-settled that transfer and posting of government servants is an incidence of service and falls within the domain of administrative discretion, and courts should not ordinarily interfere in such matters.” It further recorded, “While exercising the power of judicial review, a Court or Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions. The power is supervisory in nature.”
The Bench observed, “The Tribunal, though vested with wide powers under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, exercises jurisdiction akin to that of judicial review in service matters.” It added, “It is not expected to pass orders which have the effect of regulating or controlling day-to-day functioning of government departments, particularly at an interlocutory stage, unless a clear case of illegality or manifest arbitrariness is made out.”
On examining the impugned order, the Court recorded, “A perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that the Tribunal, at the threshold stage and without a detailed examination of the policy framework or the factual matrix, proceeded to restrain the Petitioners from posting juniors to the Respondents against the vacancies in question.”
The bench observed, "An interim order is ordinarily intended to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending adjudication. However, where the interim direction virtually grants the substantive relief sought in the original application or significantly impedes administrative discretion, greater circumspection is required."
In the factual backdrop, the Bench observed, “In the present case, the Tribunal had already directed consideration of the Respondents’ representations in the earlier proceedings. The administrative process was thus underway.” It concluded on this aspect, “Such a restraint, even if described as ad-interim, has the effect of interdicting the administrative process of consideration and posting.”
The Court directed, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.” It further ordered, “The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
The Tribunal was directed to proceed to decide the original application expeditiously, “preferably within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observations made in this order.” All pending applications were disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. B Srinivasa Rao & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1224-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2019/2026
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan
