2025:JHHC:33576-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6056 of 2025 Adwin Vinifred Tirkey, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Alfred Tirkey, R/o Back of Akancha Apartment, Near Birsa Bus Stand, Chunwatoli, Kantatoli, P.O.- Kantatoli, P.S.-Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand- 834001 …… ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, North Block, Central Secretariat, P.O.- New Delhi GPO, P.S.- Cannaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 2. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General ( HR), having its office at the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, P.O.- Sansad Marg Head P.O., P.S.- Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110124 3. The Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N), representing the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, having office at Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, P.O.- Sansad Marg Head P.O., P.S.- Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110124 4. Principal Accountant General ( Audit) having its office at A.G. Office, North Office Para, Shyamali Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vijay Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 03.11.2025 Pronounced on: 11 / 11 /2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. 1. Heard the parties. 2025:JHHC:33576-DB 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Patna ( Circuit Bench at Ranchi) whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of his transfer as also questioning the vires of the policy dated 27.01.2025 have been ordered to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for grant of following reliefs:- (a) To declare the Policy of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) as contained in Circular No. 60-Staff (App)-1/14-2023 dt. 27/01/2025 under the signature of Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N-1) concerning repatriation of staff members who are continuing on deputation on spouse ground beyond 7 years, as, ultra vires so far it concerns the deputation of staff on spouse ground, as the same is irrational, not achieving any object as also against the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training dt. 24/11/2022, which is adopted by Respondents and continue to do so, so that the status of women is enhanced in all walks of life including family life. There is no logic to allow the deputation of staff members on spouse ground for only 7 years and not beyond, despite situation remaining unchanged. (b) For setting aside the Order as contained in Office Order No. Admin (Audit)-VII-1/885685/2025 dated 21/02/2025 passed by the Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand Ranchi, under the signature of Deputy Accountant general (Admin), whereby and whereunder the petitioner who is currently on deputation on spouse 2025:JHHC:33576-DB ground is sought to be repatriated in the light of Para 2 of Circular No. 60-Staff (App)-1/14-2023 dt. 27/01/2025. (c) Further, for a direction to keep the implementation of impugned order as contained in Office Order No. Admin (Audit)-VII- 1/885685/2025 dated 21/02/2025 in abeyance till the pendency of the instant application. 4. It was averred in the Original Application that the petitioner was appointed as ‘Auditor’ in the office of Director General of Audit, Southern Railway, Chennai, Tamil Nadu on 19.10.1995. The petitioner, thereafter was transferred on deputation basis on the “Spouse Ground” since 17/08/2007 as “Senior Auditor” to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand, Ranchi without deputation allowance, which deputation was extended from time to time on the basis of written request submitted by the petitioner to the competent authority. 5. The petitioner’s wife is an Assistant Teacher posted in the State Government School Mandar, Ranchi from 22.08.1994 till date. The petitioner’s minor daughter is studying in Class-VI at Ranchi. 6. The Cadre Controlling Authority in Indian Audit & Accounts Department i.e. C.A.G. after considering the DOPT OM No. 28034/9/2009 dated 30.09.2009 containing instructions regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station, also adopted the same and issued Circular No. 4/Staffwing/2015 dated 11/02/2015 allowing posting of Staff member on the place of posting of the spouse. It was specifically mentioned therein that the deputation in such cases has 2025:JHHC:33576-DB been permitted keeping in view the instructions of Govt. of India in the matter of posting of husband and wife at the same station. 7. Similar instructions thereafter issued and reiterated vide Circular No. 1009-Staff (Appl)/08-2016 dt. 06/08/2021. Accordingly the competent authority decided that all requests should be forwarded to the Headquarters. Thereafter, yet another communication dated 24/11/2022 was issued by the government regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station wherein a reference was made to OM No. 28034/9/2009 dated 30.09.2009 (Supra) and in Para “E” it was requested that all Ministries/Departments should follow the above instruction including the instructions contained in OMs. 8. The main concern of Government of India behind issuing such guidelines was the enhancement of women’s status in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life as also to ensure the education and welfare of the children. 9. The petitioner’s deputation on “Spouse Ground” was last extended by the Competent Authority w.e.f. 17/08/2024 to 16/08/2025. However, the Competent Authority has thereafter issued a circular dated 27/01/2025 reviewing the policy regarding Deputation of Staff in the respondent department and in supersession to the earlier circular dated 09/11/2023, revised the guidelines on the subject wherein it has now been decided that the staff members who are currently on deputation beyond 7 years shall be allowed to continue their present approved term of deputation for another 6 months from the date of issue 2025:JHHC:33576-DB of these guidelines to give them and their parent office time for preparation of repatriation. 10. The petitioner forwarded his representation dated 29/01/2025 to the Headquarters seeking extension of his deputation on “Spouse Ground”. However, while the representation was pending consideration before the competent authority, the petitioner was directed to be repatriated from the office w.e.f. 04/07/2025, constraining him to approach the Tribunal for the reliefs as quoted above. 11. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner has deliberately not chosen to place on record the counter affidavit/reply filed by the respondents before the learned Tribunal and has only filed a rejoinder. However, from the order impugned therein it can be gathered that the respondents had sought to justify their action in issuing the letter dated 27.01.2025 on the ground that the guideline issued by them from time to time were not intended to impose an absolute or mandatory requirement for deputation cases involving spouses under different cadre controlling authorities. 12. The learned tribunal after going through the records dismissed the petition after coming to the following conclusions:- (i) Since the learned counsel for the applicant is mainly harping on the DoP&T's OMs dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022 on the subject of posting of husband and wife at the same station, we have gone through the OM dated 30.09.2009 carefully and find that in para 5 of the said OM it is mentioned that where the administrative authorities do not accommodate the employees citing administrative reasons, the cadre controlling authority should strive to post the employee 2025:JHHC:33576-DB at the station of the spouse and in case of inability to do so, specific reasons therefore may be communicated to the employee. In this connection, we note that the words "strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse" is not mandatory in as much as there may be certain administrative reasons and that other employees are waiting for posting since seats are limited. Moreover, we hold that the reasons given by the respondents in para 10 and 12 of their counter affidavit that seven years is quite a reasonable period which aims to prevent monopolization of specific posts and promote equitable distribution of opportunities among staff members are quite convincing and that these guidelines do not, and were not intended to, impose an absolute or mandatory requirement for deputation cases involving spouses under different cadre controlling authorities. Moreover, the officials have been deputed on personal requests rather than on public interest. (ii) Secondly, the guidelines of DoP&T dated 30.09.2009 in para 4 (vii) deals with the cases where one spouse is employed under the Central Govt, and the other spouse is employed under the State Govt. It is mentioned therein that the spouse employed under the Central Government may apply to the competent authority and the competent authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted. In the instant case, the wife of applicant is a teacher in State Government and therefore the office memorandum issued by the DOPT on the Subject: Posting of husband and wife at the same station is applicable to him. We notice here that prior to this deputation at Ranchi that has continued for more than eighteen years at a stretch, and in addition the applicant has earlier served on deputation to the same office at Ranchi from 31.07.1999 till 01.06.2006. This makes a total period of more than twenty six years on deputation at Ranchi. Though there is no time limit prescribed for continuation of a 2025:JHHC:33576-DB person at a particular place on spousal grounds but it does not mean that it will extend to an indefinite period and this does not restrict the executive from formulating a policy which gives a definite time for such posting. (iii) We are also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since 90% employees in Headquarter office are on deputation the transfer will be made in a phased manner but not at once and as such the policy is not discriminatory. (iv) In view of above, we hold that though there is no time limit prescribed for continuation of a person at a particular place on spousal grounds that does not mean that it will extend to an indefinite period and this does not restrict the executive from formulating a policy which gives a definite time for such posting. Prior to this deputation at Ranchi that has continued for more than eighteen years at a stretch the applicant has earlier served on deputation to the same office at Ranchi from 31.07.1999 till 01.06.2006. This makes a total period of more than twenty-six years on deputation at Ranchi. Now he is questioning the very policy that he has used for staying at Ranchi on deputation for more than twenty two years on the grounds that he is being deprived of the opportunity of staying with his wife and mother. If he is allowed to continue for an indefinite period to the extent of his whole service tenure then it will mean negation of policy of deputation, denial of similar opportunity to other employees who may also be waiting for their turn of being posted on deputation to be with their family members and above all the negation of recruitment rules, which has not been shown to provide recruitment by way of deputation. If he is allowed to continue for the whole service tenure, then it will in effect mean that he is now borne on a cadre to which he was not recruited to, and through this back door method of deputation, he has continued to be a member of that particular cadre. Moreover, a prior notice and time has 2025:JHHC:33576-DB been granted to prepare for repatriation to the parent cadre so there is no violation of the principle of natural justice as ample time and opportunity has been granted to the applicant. (v) We also note the dilatory tactics adopted by the learned counsel for the applicant by filing an MA 563/2025 for continuation of interim relief and adjournment of the case. Since there was clear observation of Hon'ble High Court for hearing the matter urgently such conduct of the learned counsel for the applicant is not appreciated. The counsel for the respondent has averred during the final hearing that he is under instruction that the present stand as on date is to support the departmental policy and oppose the unreasonable prayer of the applicant. Counsel for the applicant is only harping on the point that the tribunal should not hear this matter as the policy is under review by the respondent department. The stand of respondent is clear before him during this final hearing. He adopts a recalcitrant approach that it is a futile exercise to finally hear the matter. This is a contemptuous remark as Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has made it clear vide order dated 16.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 3494 of 2025 that the matter should be heard finally as expeditiously as possible. This has been made clear to both the parties through this tribunal's order passed on different dates as reflected in the order sheet. 13. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that there was no reason for the tribunal to interfere with the policy of the respondent department as it qualifies on the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. 14. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 2025:JHHC:33576-DB 15. It is vehemently argued by Sri Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent is absolutely illegal and unwarranted and above all discriminatory inasmuch as the deputation policy dated 27.01.2025 which forms the basis of repatriation of the petitioner has not been implemented qua the similarly situated persons as would be evident from the communication dated 03.04.2025 which reads as under: भारत के िनयंũक एवं महालेखापरीƗक का कायाŊलय No. 728 Staff (App-1)/05-2024/Vol II 9, दीन दयाल उपाȯाय मागŊ OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER & नई िदʟी-110124 AUDITOR GENEFIAL OF INDIA 9. DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA MARG, NEW DELHI-110 124 DATE 03/04/2025 To 1. Director General, National Academy of Audit and Accounts (NAAA), Shimla 2. Director General, International Centre for Information Systems & Audit (iCISA), Noida 3. Director General, International Centre for Environmental Audit & Sustainable Development (iCED), Jaipur 4. Director General, International Centre for Audit of Local Governance (iCAL), Rajkot Subject: Exemption of Central Training Institutes from revised deputation policy dated 27.01.2025 Sir/Madam, In view of the constraints mentioned by the central training institutes of NAAA, Shimla; iCED, Jaipur; iCISA, Noida etc., Competent Authority has decided to review the applicability of revised deputation policy clauses on these institutes and till the time such a comprehensive review is carried out, these institutions have 2025:JHHC:33576-DB been exempted from applicability of revised policy dated 27.01.2025 till further orders. 2. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (Sumeet Numar) Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N)-1 16. In addition thereto, it has been vehemently argued that the policy dated 27.01.2025 is otherwise irrational and arbitrary in nature as the husband and wife are in government service form a class within themselves and cannot be treated equally with the other staff members for the purpose of deputation. However, we find no merit in this contention. 17. At the outset it needs to be observed that the petitioner despite having opportunity did not choose to assail the communication dated 03.04.2025 (Supra) by amending the petition and simply placed the same on record in the rejoinder filed before the learned Tribunal. It is more than settled that the purpose of filing rejoinder is only to controvert the averments as set out in the reply and under no circumstances a fresh case can be set out in the rejoinder that too to assail an order, notification etc. Therefore, in case the petitioner if at all wanted to assail the communication dated 03.04.2025 (Supra), he was required to amend the original application accordingly and could not have assailed the same in the rejoinder. 18. Furthermore, it is by now well settled that the transfer in All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an 2025:JHHC:33576-DB employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. Firstly, an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. Secondly, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. Thirdly, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. 19. In this context it shall be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman and others v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494, para 23 to 27, which read as under: 23. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind. 24. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. 25. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same 2025:JHHC:33576-DB station are subject to the requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice J.S. Verma ( as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judges Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta held: “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all- India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other’s posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. […]No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only 2025:JHHC:33576-DB thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” 27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it, while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” 20. Thus, what can be taken to be well settled that the power to transfer an employee in a transferable services is within the prerogative of the employer. It is the employer who must best weigh the employee that should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for the establishment. 21. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his/her family consequent to transfer are not sufficient cause to interfere with the orders of transfer. Generally, the Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the orders of transfer of an employee issued by the employer for 2025:JHHC:33576-DB administrative reasons as it will adversely affect the smooth functioning of the institution unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provision prohibiting any such transfer. The Court or the tribunal cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine as though they are appellate authority substituting their own decisions for that of the institution, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the services concerned. The scope of judicial review in this area is very limited. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity much less any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal particularly when the same has been passed on the basis of the instructions issued by the respondents and as otherwise been passed in accordance with law. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition; the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear the costs. 23. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 11 /11/2025 A.F.R. Sharda/-