DCs have power to transfer Tehsildars, NTs within districts: CAT

Srinagar, Feb 3: The Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) in Srinagar has held that Deputy Commissioners (DCs) are competent to transfer Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars(NTs) within their respective districts.

“Perusal of the order dated 20-03-2023, issued by the office of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, reveals that the DCs have the power to transfer the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars but within their respective districts,” a bench of M S Latif (Judicial Member) said.

A Naib Tehsildar and a Patwari had petitioned the tribunal questioning the order dated 29-01-2025 issued by DC Ganderbal and had sought its intervention for allowing them to continue at their place of posting at Ganderbal and Warpoh respectively.

The Naib Tehsildar was transferred from district Budgam to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Ganderbal, for further posting in terms of an order dated 26-02-2024, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue for further posting and, as such, he was working as Naib Tehsildar Ganderbal.

The patwari was transferred in terms of order dated 14-08-2024, issued by the DC, Ganderbal from Patwari Halqa Kangan to Patwari Halqa Warpoh.

The petitioners had challenged the transfer order dated 29-01-2025 issued by DC Ganderbal on various grounds including the one that being premature it violated the transfer policy as only after five months of their earlier transfer that they had been transferred again from their place of posting.

They contended that the transfer order had been passed by an incompetent authority as the DC, Ganderbal had no power to pass the order. It was only the Financial Commissioner Revenue, or the Divisional Commissioner, who were competent to carry out such transfers, they said.

“Perusal of the order impugned reveals that both the petitioners have been transferred within their respective districts,” the court said. The Court pointed out that the petitioners' argument would hold good only had they been transferred out of their respective districts.

The Court observed that transfer is a normal consequence and incidence of service and an order of transfer can only be interfered with by the courts if it is issued by an incompetent authority or has been passed in breach of statutory rules or is the result of malice or is a colourable exercise of power.

“There is not even a whisper in the pleadings that the order impugned is a result of colourable exercise of power or the same is suffering from mala fide intentions,” the court said.

In response to the argument that the transfers being premature were against transfer policy, the court held that the Government has the power to order transfer even before the completion of minimum tenure in the interest of administration. “Any guideline or policy laid down by the Government does not carry any enforceable right as the same is recommendatory in nature and without any statutory flavour or force”.

“Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless an order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is issued in violation of statutory provisions, the same cannot be interfered with at all”, the court said.

The Court however asked the authorities concerned to treat the petition as representation of the petitioners and consider and decide the same along with the representation already filed by them and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of fifteen days positively. “ Till then respondents are directed not to give any effect to the impugned order of transfer insofar as it relates to the petitioners,” it said.