Heard Mr. Siva, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A. Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the interim relief sought for in this O.A.

2. The main ground advanced by the applicant in support of his prayer for suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 09.05.2017, in which, he has been transferred from Hyderabad to Leh is that he had submitted his application for compassionate posting on 19.10.2016 through proper channel in terms of para 12(b) of the Annexure A-7 Cadre Management Guidelines issued by the respondents. The said guidelines stipulate that applications for compassionate posting, duly recommended by CE Comd Estt. will be scrutinized by a Board of Officers based on the merit of the case. Further, the guidelines stipulate that the compassionate ground posting would ordinarily be accepted and would be refused only on account of non-availability of vacancy. His specific grievance is that his case has not been considered by the Board of Officers and that the respondents have wrongly treated his representation as a request for retention at Hyderabad on the ground of his child's education. While admitting that he has cited the ground of education of his son, who was studying in XI class as a ground for the compassionate posting, his representation dated 19.10.2016 was for retention in Hyderabad as compassionate posting.

3. The respondents have filed their reply statement stating that the applicant is not entitled to be retained at Hyderabad as para 12(e)(iii) of the Cadre Management Guidelines stipulates that only those officers whose children are in XII standard are eligible for retention in the same station for a period not exceeding one year. Since the applicant's son is studying only in XI standard, he is not eligible for retention at Hyderabad. It has been further submitted that as the applicant has completed 4 1/2 years tenure at Hyderabad his representation for compassionate posting has been rejected by the Board of Officers. The respondents have also stated that the representation of the applicant dated 19.10.2016 has been considered and put up before the Board of Officers at the time of finalization of postings. In support of this contention, the learned Standing Counsel produced Annexure R-3, in which, the consideration of the applicant's case by the Board of Officers has been done on 02.01.2017.

4. On perusal of the Annexure to the R-3 proceedings it is seen that the applicant's case was not recommended for retention on the ground that his application has not been received through proper channel. However, Page 26 of the Paper Book would show that the application of the applicant dated 19.10.2016 has been duly recommended by the Officiating ADG (OF & DRDO), Secunderabad, and forwarded to the Directorate General (Pers), MES in November 2016. Therefore, ab initio, the ground that the applicant's case was not recommended as his application had not been received through proper channel would appear to be wrong. In fact, para 1(e) of the reply statement filed by the respondents also indicates that the representation of the applicant dated 19.10.2016 has been received through proper channel. Further, the MES Cadre Management Guidelines relied upon by both the parties point to the fact that compassionate ground posting would ordinarily be accepted and would be refused only on account of non-availability of vacancy. In the instant case, the respondents have no case that there are no vacancies to accommodate the applicant at Hyderabad. Their only argument is that the mere existence of vacancies at Hyderabad will not entitle the applicant for retention as such vacancies are planned to be filled up by eligible and entitled officers from other stations in due course of time.

5. As there is a prima facie case that the applicant's application was rejected by the Board of Officers on an erroneous ground, there is a case for granting interim relief.

6. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order in respect of the applicant is suspended for a period of six weeks.

7. List the matter before Division Bench for final hearing as soon as it is constituted. The applicant is at liberty to file rejoinder, if any, before the next date of hearing.