OP (CAT) Nos. 252, 256 & 257 of 2016 (Kerala High Court)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **O.P. (CAT).No. 252 of 2016 (Z)** ## **-----------------------------** ## **O.A.NO.759/2015 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 09-09-2016** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **---------------------** **K.P.DEVAYANI, W/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS) KOCHI, KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT NAYAKKARA HOUSE, NEAR CHURCH, SARVODAYAM ROAD, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** ## **1. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN COMMAND, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, PUNE-411 001.** **3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS)** , **MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, KATTARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE P.O., KOCHI-682 004.** ## **4. UNION OF INDIA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.** ## **R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2016, ALONG WITH OP(CAT).NO.256/2016 AND OP(CAT)NO.257/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP (CAT).No. 252 of 2016 (Z) ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------------------EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA 759/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA 759/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA 759/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA 759/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER (COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS IN OA 434/2015 & OA 759/2015).** - **EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 9.9.2016 IN OA 434/2015, OA 759/2015 & OA 250/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE R1(a)** **: CML AUTHORIZATION AT KOCHI, MUMBAI AND PUNE COMPLEXES AS ON DATE, DATED 26.10.2016** **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge** **Bb** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ.** ....................................................................... **OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. Correctness and sustainability of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the Original Applications, refusing to interfere with the transfer of the petitioners ordered under the 'CML (Command Manning Level) Scheme', is the subject matter of challenge in these Original Petitions. 2. Heard Shri.R.Sreeraj, the learned counsel OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 2 : appearing for the petitioners and Shri.N.Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondents, at length. 3. OP (CAT) No.252/16 is treated as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as given therein, except where it is separately mentioned depending upon the context involved. The petitioners are working as Upper Division Clerks/Lower Division Clerks in the Southern Naval Command, Kochi; having Head Quarters at Pune. There is no dispute that the petitioners are holding transferable posts and are bound to serve anywhere under the Command. 4. While so, invoking the provision under the 'CML Transfer Scheme' (copy of the Guidelines has been produced as Annexure A-2), the 2[nd] respondent passed Annexure A-1 order dated 11.05.2015, whereby, the petitioner in OP (CAT) No.252/16 was transferred from OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 3 : Kochi to Mumbai, whereas, the petitioners in the other two cases were transferred from Kochi to Pune. Contending that there was absolutely no circumstance to have transferred the petitioners from Kochi to far distant places invoking the power and procedure under 'CML Transfer Scheme' and also attributing legal mala fides; besides challenging the incompetency to have issued Annexure A-2 by the 1[st] respondent, the petitioners moved the Tribunal by filing the Original Applications. The prayers raised in O.A.No.759/2015 (which is forming the subject matter of challenge in OP (CAT) No.252/16) are in the following terms: - _“1) Quash Annexure A-1 to the extent it relates to the applicant and direct the respondents to retain the applicant either at her present place of posting or in the alternative to consider her for a change of posting to Coimbatore,Ezhimala, Trivandrum or Bangalore._ - _2) Such other relief as may be prayed for and this_ - _Tribunal may deem fit to grant._ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 4 : _3) Grant the cost of this Original Application.”_ 5. The prayers was sought to be resisted by the Department by filing Ext.P2 reply statement, asserting that there is no right to continue in the post at Kochi, more so when the petitioners were occupying the posts for nearly or more than a decade. It was also pointed out that, organisational requirement necessitated such transfer, mainly for meeting the deficit in the concerned station and hence whether vacancy is available at Kochi or not, is not the question to be considered. In response to the rejoinder by the petitioners, Ext.P4 additional reply statement was filed by the Department. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications observing that, there was absolutely no merit or bona fides, which made them to approach this Court, by filing the above Original Petitions. 6. When the matters came up for consideration OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 5 : before this Court, an interim order was passed on 27.09.2016 and 29.09.2016, taking note of the specific contentions raised as to non-satisfaction of the requirements under the 'CML Transfer Scheme' and also as to non-consideration of the 'alternative prayer'; in turn directing the respondents to file a statement. Pursuant to the said order, a statement dated 31.10.2016 was filed on behalf of the respondents, also producing a copy of the relevant proceedings showing the status of the Office Superintendent, UDC, LDC category position as per the CML Authorisation at Kochi, Mumbai and Pune, as Annexure R1 (a). Similar statements are stated as filed today in the other cases as well. 7. Shri.R.Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no power or competency for the first respondent to have issued Annexure A-2 Guidelines and as such, it is not liable to be acted upon, OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 6 : detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioners. We are not impressed with the said argument, for two reasons. Firstly that, Annexure A-2 Guidelines are not under challenge and no prayers have been raised by the petitioners in the Original Applications. Secondly, the petitioners themselves seek to rely on Annexure A-2, particularly, paragraph 36(a), to contend that, different steps are to be pursued by the Department to record the percentage satisfaction level in respect of different categories and to have it circulated every year, before ordering and implementing transfer under the CML Transfer Scheme. This being the position, the said contention is only to be repelled. We do so. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the specific averments raised in the Original Applications and the rejoinder, though were adverted to by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P6 order, it has not been OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 7 : correctly appreciated, particularly, with regard to the circumstances under which the 'CML Transfer' could be invoked and justified. The learned counsel makes a specific reference to Clause 36(a) of CML Transfer Guidelines, by virtue of which, the percentage of category-wise satisfaction level has to be worked out, calculated and it has to be circulated by commencing such operation in December of every year and it should be finalised by March/April of the next year. This exercise was never done before ordering or implementing Annexure A-1 transfer. Despite raising a specific plea as contained in paragraph 3 of Ext.P1 Original Application, the same was not rebutted by the Department in Ext.P2 reply statement. In the said circumstance, the petitioner's specific contention in paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 rejoinder asserting that there was no circumstance to invoke 'CML Transfer' and also seeking to direct the respondents to produce the relevant documents to sustain OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 8 : the position, if it is to the contrary or else to draw adverse inference stands uncontroverted. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Hiralal and Ors Vs. Badkulal and Ors [AIR 1953 SC 225]** contending that, the best evidence available in the Department ought to have been produced before the Tribunal. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, even according to the respondents, what is conceded in paragraph 6 of Ext.P2 is that the calculation exercise was done and it was circulated in the year '2012', which, however, cannot be the basis for effecting any transfer under the particular Scheme in the subsequent years; ie, in 2014 and 2015. It goes without saying that by the passage of time, the position might have undergone drastic change, by virtue of retirement, additional recruitment, transfers, resignations and such other circumstances. OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 9 : 9. There is another contention for the petitioners, that the factual situation with reference to the Command is not correct, particularly, in relation to the post of Upper Division Clerk, which is stated as in abundance. Referring to Annexure R3(b) proceedings dated 03.12.2014, it is contended that the Command is having an authorised strength of '789' UDCs, but, as many as 993 persons are available with the Command, to be re-distributed, if at all any such requirement is there. The said version has been dealt with by the respondents in Ext.P2 reply statement, particularly, in paragraph 4, wherein, the authorised strength of '789' is admitted, however, contending that the subsequent promotions from the said category had not been taken into consideration by the applicant to project the current position. But, the fact remains that, the correct figure was never brought out from the part of the Department as well. OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 10 : 10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed a copy of the proceedings bearing No.200301/Tana/II/05/RTI Cell dated 18.06.2015, issued by the Head Quarters of Southern Naval Command at Pune, obtained under the RTI Act. The category-wise position, as given in the table, is in the following terms: |_Category_|_Auth_|_Auth_||_Held_| |---|---|---|---|---| ||_Civ_|_Mil_|_Civ_|_Mil_| |_OFFICE_<br>_SUPDT_<br>_(Asst+OS)_|_486_|_130_|_400_|_71_| |_UDC_|_789_|_590_|_817_|_417_| |_LDC_|_972_|_985_|_446_|_631_| From the above, it is stated that, as against the authorised strength of '789' UDCs, 817 are available and hence, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in this regard, to be re-distributed. 11. The further contention of the petitioners is that OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 11 : the assessment as per the guidelines has to be effected in respect of each category, to record the satisfaction level. Despite this, an attempt is made from the part of the Department, as revealed from the statement filed before this Court, to club all the different categories under the Grade to be taken together (such as Office Superintendent, UDC and LDC) so as to contend that there is no deficiency in Kochi. In so far as paragraph 36(a) of Annexure A-2 Guidelines clearly stipulates that the percentage calculation and recording of the satisfaction level has to be in each category; such grouping or clubbing of the vacancies in different categories is not possible or justified, which stands against the terms and spirit of Annexure A-2. It is also contended that, even if such clubbing exercise is done, deficiency is still there, as given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Ext.P3 rejoinder, referring to the position as in April 2015, ie, just prior to Annexure A-1 transfer effected in May and OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 12 : ## the position as in December 2015, which are reproduced below for convenience of reference: ## _- CE (NW) Kochi Strength Details of Kochi Area as on April_ _2015_ |_Serial_<br>_No_|_Category_|_Authorization_|_Held_|_CML Auth._|_Def/Sur_| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |_1_|_OS_|_23_|_20_|_20_|_---_| |_2_|_UDC_|_53_|_32_|_53_|_-21_| |_3_|_LDC_|_40_|_33_|_20_|_+13_| |_4_|_Total_|_116_|_85_|_93_|_-08_| _As on Dec 2015_ |_Serial_<br>_No_|_Category_|_Authorization_|_Held_|_CML Auth._|_Def/Sur_| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |_1_|_OS_|_13_|_20_|_12_|_+8_| |_2_|_UDC_|_42_|_30_|_42_|_-12_| |_3_|_LDC_|_40_|_33_|_25_|_+8_| |_4_|_Total_|_95_|_83_|_79_|_+4_| 12. With reference to the above facts and figures, it is contended that, if there is any surplus in Kochi, how the persons by name Vasantha R. Nair and Rekha K, specifically named and referred to in the proceedings (who were transferred out to various places along with the petitioners) were brought back and accommodated in Kochi. This only OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 13 : shows the way in which proceedings are being pursued, extending undue favours to persons of choice. It is also pointed out that the applicants had specifically pleaded that 'two vacancies' of Office Superintendents were to arise, pursuant to retirement of two officers in February 2016 and April 2016, which was also not properly dealt with by the respondents while answering the case, as have simply left it untouched, as revealed from paragraph 4 of Ext.P4 additional reply statement. The distribution as it now exists, as revealed from Annexure R1(a) dated 26.10.2016 (produced along with the statement dated 31.10.2016), is in the following terms: _The state of OS, UDC and LDC category as per CML authorisation at Kochi, Mumbai and Pune complexes as on date is as under:-_ |_Ser No_|_Category_|_Ceiling_<br>_Auth_|_CML Auth_|_Net Held_|_Sur/Defi_|_Remarks_| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ## _**Kochi Complex**_ |_(a)_|_OS_|_19_|_17_|_19_|_(+)02_|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |_(b)_|_UDC_|_50_|_41_|_27_|_(-)14_|_(-)6_| |_(c)_|_LDC_|_41_|_23_|_29_|_(+)06_|| OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 14 : ## _**Mumbai Complex**_ |_(a)_|_OS_|_42_|_37_|_28_|_(-)09_|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |_(b)_|_UDC_|_95_|_78_|_83_|_(+)05_|_(-)19_| |_(c)_|_LDC_|_79_|_42_|_32_|_(-)10_|| |**_Pune Complex_**||||||| |_(a)_|_OS_|_89_|_70_|_52_|_(-)18_|| |_(b)_|_UDC_|_190_|_158_|_173_|_(+)15_|_(-)49_| |_(c)_|_LDC_|_190_|_101_|_55_|_(-)46_|| ## _**Pune Complex**_ 13. It is mentioned just above the table, that the figures have been given as per the CML authorisation at Kochi, however, without disclosing as to date of such authorisation or without producing a copy of such authorisation. In so far as there is no case for the respondents that any such calculation of circulation as to the satisfaction level has been done by the competent authority in respect of the year 2014 or 2015, prior to issuance of Annexure A-1 and further in view of the only contention as raised in paragraph 6 of Ext.P2 reply statement that such exercise was done only in the year OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 15 : 2012, it has to be reasonably presumed that such exercise was never done thereafter. 14. The 'Command Manning Level posting' is governed by Annexure A-2 Guidelines, particularly, as dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 38, which are relevant and hence extracted below: ## _“_ _**COMMAND MANNING LEVEL POSTING (CML)**_ _35. Command Manning Level posting (CML) involves parity of manning levels between different CEs Command. It has been noticed from the past that the satisfaction level on account of job requirement is vastly varying from one CE Command to another, basically on account of the geographical location and the quality of life therein._ _36. (a) CEs Command in order to maintain the_ _manning level of subordinates in the Command, will calculate the percentage satisfaction level of each category in the grade of Group 'C' & 'D' based on Ceiling/Authorization/Holding/ Surpluses/Deficiencies in respect of all Basic/Non-Basic,Industrial/Non-Industrial subordinate staff. Based on the manpower state CEs Command will circulate the percentage_ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 16 : _satisfaction manning level and implement it by ordering transfers from one station to another to achieve uniformity in satisfaction level. The posting will be termed as CML (Command Manning Level) posting._ _(b) CML posting will be normally from executive to executive except to the home station of the individual concerned provided employee's executive tenure is not exceeded beyond six years continuously. All postings under CML shall be issued by end of March every year keeping in view the academic session of children and will be implemented latest by 15 May each year._ _(c) The list of affected staff due for posting with tentative station wise posts, to be circulated by Dec each year, for giving their choice station. The CML postings should be ordered on region to be framed by CEs Command based on concept of Zonal Chief Engineer areas considering the geographical contiguity, travel time (preferably not more than over night journey), and other MES formations of Air Force/Navy/R&D/Factory stations in the region. The tenure/hard stations_ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 17 : _are to be excluded and not considered while deciding the regions._ _(d) The preference will be given to volunteers and newly recruited employees including Exservicemen and those recruited under DCRE by EIA should be posted to stations having more deficiency._ ## _**- Inter Command CML Posting**_ _(e) Posting to other stations to be ordered for the purpose of manning CML only. If CML posting (of a post) is ordered to station 'A' no body else should be posted out from station 'A' except on compassionate grounds and those due for tenure posting from Station 'A' as per Command Seniority._ ## _**- -** 37._ _**Inter Command posting:**_ _(a) Inter command posting will be for CML, Tenure postings and Compassionate grounds posting. The postings will be issued by CEs Command._ _(b) All the inter-Command postings ordered in the interest of organization for sharing shortages to protect the interest of individuals, will be considered as tenure stations for the_ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 18 : _purpose of tenure and repatriation._ _(c) The existing posting in CE Pathankot Zone, CE Jaipur Zone will not be termed as intercommand posting for a period of two years. After two years, SW Command will be selfaccounting unit. CE NC will remain Parent Command of CE Pathankot Zone._ _38. In order to maintain manning level in all units/formations evenly within the Command as well as other Commands, the longest stayee in the particular post/grade will be transferred from one region to another. For this purpose the stations/complexes and approximate number of vacancies available, will be published by CEs Command to enable the longest stayee to opt for three stations/complexes of choice from amongst such regions. If the number of optees for a particular region is more than the number of vacancies available, posting will be considered in the order of seniority i.e. longest stayee will get first opportunity to be adjusted as per option given. Those who could not be accommodated at the station/complex of their choice for want of vacancies will be posted as per job requirement.”_ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 19 : 15. From paragraph 36(a), it is quite evident that the CEs Command has to calculate the percentage satisfaction level of each category in the grade of Group C and Group D and it has to be circulated for being implemented by ordering the transfers from one station to another, to achieve uniformity in satisfaction level. Sub Clause (b) of paragraph 36 reveals that, all postings under CML shall be issued by the end of March every year (with reference to the academic session of children) to be implemented at least by the 15[th] of May **each** year. It is further discernible from Sub Clause (c) of 36 that, the list of affected staff due for posting with tentative station-wise posts is to be circulated by December **each** year for giving their choice stations. This clearly reveals that the exercise has to be done every year, as the position may vary from year to year, based on retirement, resignations, transfers or such other outward movement, new recruitment etc. The OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 20 : position in the year 2012, as referred to in paragraph 6 of Ext.P2 reply statement, may not be the same as available before issuance of Annexure A-1. No material has been produced before this Court or any pleading has been raised to the effect that any such calculation was effected recording the satisfaction level and circulating the same prior to Annexure A-1. The reliance sought to be placed on the proceedings effected in the year 2012 as such is not sufficient to justify the course pursued by the Department, to hold that it was in conformity with paragraph 36(a) of Annexure A-2 guidelines, which even according to the learned counsel who made the submissions on behalf of the Department before this Court, have to be strictly followed. 16. The Tribunal, after referring to the rival pleadings, has dealt with the matter as given in paragraph 16, in the following manner: _“16. It has to be noted that transfer policy guidelines are intended for providing a guidance to_ OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 21 : _the administrative authorities and to bring in uniformity and for avoid arbitrariness. However, such guidelines cannot be treated as sacrosanct, unlike the statutory provisions and statutory rules. If the administrative authority who is in charge of the manpower management is of the view that the other units require the services of the employees notwithstanding the arithmetics of their numerical and sanctioned strength no mala fides can be attributed to them because there is no vested right in any government employee to be remain not transferred from a Government post. Shri Anilkumar, Sr.PCGC referred to a good number of decisions of the Apex Court in support of this legal position: National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan & Anr. - 2001 (8) SCC 574, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal - 2001 (5) SCC 508, State of U.P. v. Siya Ram - 2004 (7) SCC 405, Moosakoya v. State of Kerala - 1997 (1) KLT 158, Sreekumar S. v. Union of India & Ors. - 2014 (4) KHC 621 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.L.Abbas - 1994 SCC (L & S) 230.”_ From the above, it is clear that the basic and relevant OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 22 : aspects with regard to the recording of satisfaction level to sustain 'CML Transfer', as envisaged in paragraph 36 of Annexure A-2, was not properly effected by the respondents concerned; though there may not be any variation with regard to the factual aspects collected by them from appropriate sources, to be given effect to for effecting the transfer. 17. It is true that no interference can normally been made with regard to Transfer, by virtue of the settled law and the binding precedents, unless it is arbitrary or where malafides came to be is established. Even if it be not a case of malafides, if the transfer is effected contrary to the relevant norms as envisaged in Annexure A-2, in so far as it involves 'CML Transfer', the issue gathers more momentum, by virtue of the mandate under paragraph 59 of the said Scheme, as female employees are normally not transferred to far off places as a matter of policy, pursuant to the OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 23 : Government Order dated 28.01.1994, copy of which is produced as Annexure R-1. 18. It is true that the benefit conferred by the above provision is only to the extent possible and that organisational interest is supreme, which cannot be doubted or disputed by the petitioners. It is in the said context, that the chance, if any, to give a posting to the choice stations like Coimbatore, Bangalore, Ezhimala and Trivandrum (as the case may be) is to be considered. It is true that a representation was submitted by the petitioners, which came to be turned down, without showing any reason. At the same time, the pleadings reveal that such requests made by some other similarly situated persons were entertained and they were accommodated. Even though an attempt has been made by the respondents to justify one such incident with reference to Vasantha R. Nair, who was given a posting at Kochi stating that, it was on OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 24 : medical reasons, the position is not clarified in respect of the other persons like Rekha K or Susan Ninan. Even in the case of Susan Ninan, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, she had sought for a choice posting to Coimbatore, which was considered and granted, but, thereafter, the said person who was already transferred to Pune, submitted before the respondents that, she was not desirous to have posting at Coimbatore, as her son had obtained admission in some academic institution in Pune; under which circumstance the transfer to Coimbatore was not implemented. Despite this, the request made by one of the petitioners before this Court was never entertained and the reason is not revealed. 19. Now comes the question of moulding the relief. We are in November, 2016. Annexure A-1 order of transfer was passed in May, 2015. Pursuant to the challenge made before the Tribunal, there was an interim order of stay and OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 25 : the petitioners were enjoying the same. When the petitioners approached this Court, as per the interim order dated 27.09.2016, it was ordered to maintain 'status quo', directing the respondents to clarify the position with reference to the particulars of 'CML Transfer' by filing a statement. That position still continues. By virtue of Annexure A-2 'CML Transfer Guidelines', percentage satisfaction level in each category has to be assessed and circulated by December of every year and the proceedings have to be finalised by the last week of March (in the next year), as given in paragraph 36. This being the position, a fresh exercise requires to be conducted in respect of the further proceedings before effecting the further transfer and since the time is due in this regard, this Court directs the authorities ie, the second respondent, to take necessary steps in this regard, work out the percentage of satisfaction level, circulate the same and proceed with further steps for OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 26 : effecting the transfer, enabling the units concerned to have sharing of manpower in terms of the CML Transfer Scheme. The academic section is also to come to an end, by March 2017. In the said circumstance, 'status quo' shall be maintained till the proceedings are finalised by the second respondent as above and the petitioners will be bound to vacate the seats, if any transfer is necessitated, by virtue of their longer tenure/seniority in the station at Kochi. It is also made clear that, this order will not bar the way of the second respondent in transferring the petitioners forthwith to any of the choice stations opted by them like Coimbatore, Bangalore, Ezhimala or Trivandrum as the case may be, if any organisational interest requires to be satisfied by meeting such contingency at the place concerned. 20. With the above observations, we modify the order passed by the Tribunal to the said extent in the case OP (CAT) Nos.252, 256 & 257 of 2016 : 27 : of the petitioners herein. The Original Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE** Bb/16/11/2016 _[True copy] P.A to Judge_