1. Applicant is a GDS BPM in Kakkode Branch Office in Kollam district. He was appointed to the post on 01.07.2014. It is a BPM level-I post with TRCA Rs. 12000-29380. According to the applicant, in accordance with Annexure-A2 OM, touching limited transfer facility for all categories of GDS he could make request for transfer at any time during the year. Now consequent to Annexure-A3, the post of GDS BPM at Manalil Branch Office, BO for short, has fallen vacant on 13.01.2023. He satisfies all the requirements for being considered for transfer. He has completed more than nine years in Kakkode BO, both are of the same TRCA; but before he could submit an application for transfer the vacancy has been notified for engagement of GDS from open market through Annexure-A5, which has caused him considerable injustice. The application made by him through Annexure-A6 stands rejected through Annexure-A8, which is a cryptic order. Therefore, he seeks to quash Annexure-A8, to quash Annexure-A4 to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of Annexure-A2, which permits application and consideration of request at any time during the course of the year, to quash Annexure-A5 to the extent it notifies the post of BPM Manalil BO for recruitment and to direct the 4th respondent to consider the applicant for appointment by transfer as BPM Manalil BO in preference to outsiders if he satisfies the condition for transfer as prescribed in Annexure-A2.

2. According to the applicant, Annexure-A2 has the force of a statute. But Annexure-A4 has been issued to trifle the enabling provisions for transfer facility by limiting the time for option for seeking transfer counter to the guidelines in Annexure-A2. Referring to Rule 38 of the P&T Manual Volume-IV, he urged that the request transfers should be considered if the rights of others are not affected. Now the vacancy in BPM Manalil is notified, no one is appointed and therefore no person is going to affect. If the applicant is posted by transfer as BPM Manalil, BPM Kakkode can be taken as vacant. Relying on the decision reported in Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices v. CAT 2000(3) KLT 541] he submitted that GDSs are entitled for transfer and request for transfer cannot be rejected, if they satisfy all the conditions of transfer. After accommodating the applicant in the vacancy of Manalil, the respondents can very well notify the resultant vacancy which is in the same TRCA.

3. The respondents have opposed the claim. According to them, limited transfer facility of GDS is governed by guidelines issued by the Postal Directorate from time to time. To facilitate easier and more transparent processing of transfer applications of GDS under limited transfer facility, GDS online transfer portal was used by the Postal Directorate. Such guidelines for processing applications through online portal with specific time frame for various activities were issued through Annexure-A4. Accordingly, all the requests were duly processed and Annexure-A3 transfer order was issued on 13.01.2023. Smt. Sujina, BPM Manalil BO was also transferred in the order. Consequent to her transfer, post of GDS BPM, Manalil BO became vacant. All GDS vacancies are filled up through online notification process done in half yearly cycle. Referring to Annexure-R1 it is submitted that the Postal Directorate issued guidelines and preparatory exercises to be completed in connection with GDS online engagement process. Annexure-R1 contains specific time schedule fixed by the competent authority for various activities. Thereafter Annexure-A5 notification was issued. This was an exercise uniformly followed across the circles. It was stipulated in Annexure-A4 that those posts fallen vacant after GDS transfers also shall be identified for notification. All the vacancies where there is no court cases/compassionate appointment requests were notified in Annexure-A5.

4. According to the respondents, the applicant had submitted a request on 21.01.2023 to update his mobile number in GDS online portal. Then he gave Annexure-A6 representation on 30.01.2023 seeking to withdraw the post of GDS BPM Manalil from online notification and to consider him for that vacancy. It was replied through Annexure-A8 as his request was not entertainable.

5. The respondents have maintained that GDS online transfer portal was introduced to facilitate easier and more transparent processing of transfer applications of GDS under limited transfer facility. Such guidelines on the processing of applications through online portal was issued through Annexure-A4 with specific time frame for various activities. Such applications were duly processed and that was how Annexure-A3 was issued. The applicant is also aware that he would be governed by the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. The respondents have also relaxed earlier conditions for limited transfer facility. Everything was done for streamlining erstwhile transfer requests for processing through online portal. Streamlining the periodicity of submission of online transfer requests was insisted by the introduction of the online portal. Intention behind the cyclical processing of transfer request is to ensure systematic processing of such requests and filling up of vacancies in a time bound manner, without delay.

6. According to the respondents, the contention that Annexure- A2 has force of statute has no basis. Both Annexures-A2 and A4 are administrative guidelines issued for the operation of various rules in the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2020.

7. GDS vacancies are filled up through online notification process done in half yearly cycle. Prior to issue of Annexure-A5, time line in Annexure-R1 was followed across the Circles. It was further stipulated in Annexure-A4 that those posts fallen vacant after GDS transfers also shall be identified for notification. Post of GDS BPM Manalil BO fell vacant on 13.01.2023 and hence it was also included in the notification.

8. According to the respondents, now by the introduction of the online portal processing of transfer requests entire process has become more transparent and accessible. It may be true that the applicant satisfies all the conditions, but that does not give him an indefeasible right of transfer. It depends upon availability of vacancy, number of transfer requests, seniority of GDS who have applied for transfer to particular post etc. The argument of the applicant that after considering the transfer request, GDS BPM Kakkode should have been notified for engagement cannot be accepted. If such a course is adopted, some other GDS may come with similar claim against filling up the post of GDS BPM Kakkode through transfer rather than by notification from open market.

9. According to the respondents, updation of establishment data is a continuous process. A schedule of preparatory exercise must be invariably planned and executed to ensure smooth processing of online transfer applications which has to be done in a cyclical manner. So, they prayed for dismissing the O.A.

10. Applicant filed a rejoinder and submitted that Annexure-R1 postulated to consider vacancy only upto 31.12.2022, but vacancies arose even after that date were also taken into consideration in Annexure-A5 notification. According to him, the respondents are harping on hyper technicalities to deny his legitimate right.

11. In an additional reply statement, the respondents have pointed out that as per Annexure-R3 communication, which was given wide publicity, no application for GDS transfer could be entertained through manual mode after 15.10.2022. On the date of Annexure-A4, post of GDS BPM Manalil was not vacant so that it could not be notified. When Annexure-A5 notification was issued, that post had fallen vacant and thus it was also notified for engagement on 17.01.2023. The applicant had not moved any representation for transfer. In fact he could not have made any representation in manual mode after 15.10.2022.

12. I heard the learned counsel on both sides in detail.

13. At the time of admitting the O.A., as an interim measure, it was directed that though the processing of the applications for the post of BPM Manalil can be proceeded, that post shall not be filled up. That interim order continues.

14. By the nature of the post held by the applicant, he has only limited transfer facility. As per Annexure-A2, in relaxation of the earlier provisions, maximum number of chances for transfer for a male GDS is two. It is also evident from Annexure-A2 that refusal to accept the limited transfer order shall be construed as one chance availed by the GDS. So, normally GDSs are very careful in submitting application for transfer. As stated by the learned counsel, they are discharging a part time job of 5 hour duty earning limited income. Therefore, as far as possible, they should be given convenient posting, proximate to their place of residence. The respondents are also conscious of such limitations and make relaxations from time to time in the matter of transfer of GDS.

15. As per Annexure-A2 OM, one should have completed a minimum engagement period of one year from the date of regular engagement in GDS post on the date of making the transfer request. At that time, request for transfer could be submitted manually. In other words, systematic online facility was not introduced. Such a facility was introduced only through Annexure-A4 on 28.11.2022. Online transfer portal contains a schedule of activities like master data entry of the vacancies by the Unit/Divisions, updation of mobile numbers of the GDS seeking transfers, online registration, submission of application etc. The time line started from 28.11.2022 to 07.01.2023. In other words, the online transfer portal introduced through Annexure-A4 postulated completion of transfer process with ease. It is the common case that when Annexure-A4 was issued, there was no vacancy of GDS BPM in Manalil to which post the applicant had an inclination. It seems that he resides proximate to the said BO. As the vacancy was not notified, he could not submit any application. The process started by Annexure-A4 was completed by Annexure-A3 order dated 13.01.2023 whereunder Smt. Sujina, BPM Manalil BO was transferred to Changanassery RMS and thus a vacancy arose in Manalil. Thereafter, following Annexure-R1 communication, touching the preparatory exercise to be completed in connection with online engagement, Annexure-A5 notification was issued inviting online applications for filling up various vacancies of GDS, BPM, ABPM etc. In Annexure-A5, the post of BPM at Manalil also has been notified for engagement of GDS from open market.

16. The grievance of the applicant is that Annexure-A5 was a bolt from the blue; if such a vacancy is filled by engagement through open market, that would foreclose his right of transfer. He could not make any representation to seek transfer when Annexure-A4 was issued since no such vacancy was existing. Annexure-A5 was issued without giving him an opportunity to make representation. Annexue-A6 representation given by him was rejected through Annexure-A8 order, which is cryptic and thus his right of transfer has been foreclosed. Incidentally, he has also pleaded that provisions of Annexure-A2 which has the force of statute is tried to be trifled through Annexure-A4 etc., which is illegal. All these contentions have been disputed by the respondents.

17. After evaluating and assessing various circumstances and sequences of events, I have reasons to conclude that the respondents cannot be said to have done anything purposely with the intention of prejudicing the interests of the applicant. Everything was the result of the turn of events happened due to the introduction of online engagement of GDS and online transfer portal.

18. During the currency of Annexure-A2 OM, a GDS who satisfied the conditions could place request for transfer any time during the year. At that time, manual requests alone were entertained. There was no time line or schedule in vogue for submitting or allowing transfer requests. Subject to availability of vacancy, if other conditions were satisfied and TRCA tallied, the competent authority at the appropriate level could effect transfers. But by the introduction of GDS online transfer portal, that has become impossible. Such a portal was introduced through Annexure-A4 communication dated 28.11.2022. As a prelude, as seen from Annexure- R3, it was made public that GDSs would be allowed to submit manual requests for transfer only till 15.10.2022, that no application for GDS transfer will be entertained in the manual mode after 15.10.2022 under any circumstance. It is clear from the communication that developing an online portal/application for processing transfer applications was approved by the competent authority and the Centre for Excellence in Postal Technology was requested to develop such a portal which would likely to be put in place by the end of December 2022.

19. All I want to highlight is introduction of online portal through Annexure-A4 was not made overnight. But it was a step taken after making detailed plan.

20. Such online portal was introduced in relaxation of earlier conditions to facilitate easier and more transparent processing of transfer applications. Everything was done after giving wide publicity and notice to all stake holders.

21. It has come out that, following the time schedule in Annexure- A4, transfer applications were considered and Annexure-A3 order was issued on 13.01.2023, a few days past the outer time limit fixed in Annexure-A4. Consequently, a vacancy of GDS BPM Manalil arose, to which the applicant had an eye of getting transfer. Immediately thereafter, that vacancy was notified for engagement through open market and thus schedule attached to Annexure-A5 contains that vacancy as well.

22. As stated earlier, the grievance of the applicant is that he could not seek transfer to that place; in Annexure-A4 such a vacancy was not notified. But that vacancy had arisen on the issue of Annexure-A3 transfer orders which was the outcome of Annexure-A4 transfer process.

23. After evaluating the turn of events, I do not find my way to blame anyone for the difficulty caused to the applicant. In my assessment, the applicant could not make out an enforceable right in his favour, for numerous reasons. Firstly, the applicant does not have any vested right of transfer. It is the settled proposition that transfer is an incidence of service. It is for the employer to decide whom to be posted where. It is true that in the decision in Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, quoted supra, if the conditions of transfer are complied with, a GDS is entitled to seek transfer. But here, the turn of events was the creation of circumstances beyond the control of anyone. It was not intended to cause any prejudice or difficulty to the applicant or any GDS in particular. Reformation introduced in processing transfer applications have PAN-India ramifications. Annexure-A4 was issued as part of streamlining the transfer process. As rightly pointed out, the object behind introducing cyclical processing is to ensure systematic method of receiving applications, processing the same and granting transfers with least human intervention.

24. Secondly, the contention of the applicant that Annexures-A4, A7 etc. were done in derogation of statutory provisions for trifling statutory obligations can be considered only to be rejected. The applicant has proceeded as though Annexure-A2 has the force of law, whereas Annexures-A4, A7 etc. are intended to derogate the statute. Annexure-A2 is an O.M. issued from the GDS Section of Department of Posts of Ministry of Communications. Annexure-A4 also is a communication issued from the very same GDS section of the Department of Posts. Both were signed by officers in the rank of Assistant Director General. I could not find any distinction between these two communications. Both are administrative instructions issued from the same department and Ministry. Sources of power of both these communications are one and the same. Both are guidelines issued by the Department of Posts of the Ministry of Communications and cannot have the force of law. No doubt, such communications were issued in implementation of the provisions of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules issued from time to time. These are norms issued by the department for the guidance in the matter of regulating transfers and are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who were implementing orders of transfer. It do not have the status of law or statute.

25. It is the settled proposition of law that such norms enunciated by Government for guiding officers in the matter of regulating transfers are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfers in the exigencies of administration. They do not have statutory force (see Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas 1993:INSC:169 : (1993) 4 SCC 357].

26. Moreover, the applicant has a contention that he was prevented from making any application for transfer to Manalil BO consequent to Annexure-A3. The sequence of events stated earlier do not support such an argument. A vacancy had arisen in BPM Manalil only on 13.01.2023 after the transfer of the said Sujina. Immediately thereafter, Annexure-A5 notification was issued for filling up the post. It is true that the respondents were expected to fill up vacancies arising only upto 31.12.2022. But the vacancies arose on 13.01.2023 were also reckoned but that would not give any advantage to the applicant or similarly situated aspirants for transfer. Primarily, the applicant did not make any request for transfer at all. He gave Annexure-A6 only on 30.01.2023. Such a request could not have been entertained for the basic reason that the post was already notified for engagement from open market. Moreover, in the light of Annexure-R3 communication dated 20.09.2022 an application through manual mode could not have been entertained after 15.10.2022.

27. The argument that he has been discriminated also is illusory. The applicant wanted to say that he was discriminated against the person who might be engaged to the post at Manalil, if at all it comes through, pursuant to Annexure-A5 notification. That has no basis. The application sprung up from his disgust as he could not make application to the post at Manalil. For numerous reasons detailed above, he could not have applied for the post.

28. It is also important to note that Annexures-A3 and A5 were originated from two different ends. Annexure-A3 was issued by the Assistant Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, vacancies arisen consequent to the issue of Annexure-A3 transfers were also notified in Annexure-A5 communication issued by the Assistant Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi.

29. I do not find that any valuable right of the applicant has been infringed consequent to the issue of Annexure-A5. Everything was the result of turn of events occurred in a transition stage when manual mode of making applications for transfer stood replaced by online mode. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, if a request as prayed for by the applicant is considered and BPM Kakkode is made vacant after giving transfer to the applicant as prayed for, that may have cascading effect. There is no guarantee that another GDS will not come up with a similar prayer seeking transfer to Kakkode. Moreover, once the vacancy in Manalil is notified there is no assurance that no other candidate with a better credentials will not make the claim.

30. There is substance in the argument that the preparatory exercise, as a prelude to Annexure-A5 notification, Annexure-R1 proposed to reckon vacancies arose only 'upto 31st December 2022 due to discharge, resignations, transfer and falling vacant due to deputation '. Slightly deviating therefrom, vacancies occurred due to the transfer effected on 13.01.2023 also were notified in Annexure-A5. But it is not a circumstance to draw adverse inferences. It must have been done in larger interest of the department to fill maximum vacancies.

31. The applicant has not approached the Tribunal with bonafide intention. Matters cannot be considered in the narrow perspective of an individual. The stand of the applicant is retrograde in nature. It cannot be upheld.

32. The Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs. Interim order is vacated.