MUSHTAQ RASHID LONE vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT on 14 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR Order Sheet Item no.: 19 O.A./1145/2026 (SRINAGAR) [ TRANSFER/POSTING ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 14/10/2026 MUSHTAQ RASHID LONE Vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT

For Applicant(s) Advocate : M.I.DAR with MS. SANA

For Respondent(s) Advocate : RAIS UD DIN GANAI - DAG Order of The Tribunal 01/ The petitioner, holding a substantive post of Patwari in Revenue Department, was posted as Patwari, Halqa Ratsuna, Beerwah, Distric Badgam, and has been continuing there for the last more than years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of order bearing No. DCB/PS/81 of 2026 dated 06-10-2026, the petitioner was ordered to swap his post with one Ali Mohammad, Patwari, Halqa Ompora, , in the interest of administaration and smooth functioning of the official work and it was mentioned in the order that both the officers shall be deemed to have been relieved. 02/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of the said order, has joined his new place of posting - Ompora. However, he submitted that ink of the order dated 06-10-2026 had not even dried that same has been rescinded ab initio in terms of another order bearing No. 82/DCB/PS of 2026 dated 06-10-2026 and the same is assailed through the medium of this petition on the grounds enumerated therein. 03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was transferred after having served in Ratsuna, Beerwah, for more than five years and the order impugned was only issued at the instance of respondent No. 5 -Ali Mohamad, Patwari, for, he did not want to go to Ratsuna. Learned counsel submitted that once the order of transfer was issued in the itnerest of administration and for smooth functioning of the official work, what prevailed upon the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Badgam, to rescind the earlier order ab initio and what public interest was sought to be achieved by him when otherwise the earlier order also was passed in the public interest and smooth functioning of the office work and on the same day. As such, learned counsel alleges mala fides against the the DC, Badgam, who has been arrayed as party respondent in the matter in person. 04/ Admittedly, law does not restrict the competent authority to rescind an order, however, same has to be done strictly in accordance with law by adhereing to the rules of natural justice and in doing so, the competent authority has to assign reasons as to what prevailed upon him to rescind an earlier order ab initio. Needless to say that the competent authority is the best judge to transfer an emplyee in the public and administrative interest and an employee has no right to seek a posting of his choice. It goes without saying that the courts have a very limited power to interfere in the matters involving transfers or in administrative matters, which are always left to the domain of the competent authority. Courts can only intervene in case the authority has acted in a mala fide manner or the order is passed in violation of the Statute or same has not been passed for the professed purpose. To this effect, I am fortified by a catenae of judgements delivered by the apex court, e.g. Shilpi Bose & others versus State of Bihar and others, 1991 (2) SCC 659, Union of India and others versus S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 & Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592. 05/ In the instant case, prima facie, it appears that the DC, Badgam, has adopted a unique method of kite flying by rescinding an order which otherwise had been passed just on the same day, thus, demonstrating that there has been non application of mind on his part in issuance of both the orders, viz. order No. DCB/PS/81 dated 06-10- 2026 & No. 82/DCB/PS of 2026 dated 06-10- 2026. Learned counsel submitted that, ironically, the DC, Badgam, was transferred on the very next date.

06/ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. Issue notice to the other side. 07/ Mr. Rais ud din Ganai - DAG appered and waived notice on belahf of respondents 1,2 & 4. He shall file his detailed response in the matter by next date of hearing. 08/ Learned counsel for the petitioner to file 02 AD covers along with two sets of paper book before the Registry within two days' and on needful being done, Registry shall serve notice upon the respondents 3&5 in accordance with law. 09/ List for consideration on 28-10-2026. 10/ In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, present incumbent - the Deputy Commissioner, Badgam, to consider the case of the petitioner, for which the petitioner is directed to move a detailed representation before him within four days' and the same shall be dealt with by passing appropriate orders within one week thereafter and for one week, the impugned order bearing No. 82/DCB/PS of 2026 dated 06-10-2026 is kept in abeyance. Mr. Rais - DAG to also submit the compliance as regards disposal of the representation to be filed by the petitioner. 09/ Registry to provide a copy of this order to Mr. Rais ud din Ganai- DAG for its onward transmission and information to the concerned authority. M. S. Latif Member (J) Tariq Mota ( ps consultant )