1. Transfer to NPPTI, Hyderabad vice Dr. Bhaskar Tripathi by an order dated 31.05.2005, is the grievance of the applicant.
2. Brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (Bioassay) through Union Public Service Commission and was later on re-designated as Deputy Director in the Bioassay Division of CIL, Faridabad under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
The Recruitment Rules for Sr. Scientific Officer (SSO Bio) prescribed qualification of MSc (Agriculture) in Agronomy (Herbicides) with minimum five years research experience. The specific duties attached with the post are to test the sample and study in Bioassay Division.
Under the Insecticides Act, there are three units i.e. one CBI & RC and CIL located at Hyderabad and others are in Kanpur and Chandigarh. NPPTI at Hyderabad, which imparts training, is not formulated under Insecticides Act, 1968.
3. In the wake of 5th Central Pay Commissions recommendations contained in para 56.21, Ministry of Agriculture by an order dated 28.5.2003 re-designated the post of Joint Director (Bio) as Joint Director (Weed Science) with feeder categories of Sr. SSO (Bio), Agronomist (Herbicides) and Deputy Director (Weed Science).
4. Earlier to the above, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage (Weed Specialist) Recruitment Rules, 1975 was containing essential qualification for the post of Weed Specialist as MSc in Agronomy with three years experience in teaching. Joint Director (Bioassay) and Junior Scientific Officer (Bioassay) Rules were promulgated on 30.07.1991 and as per the Rules the feeder categories are Entomologist (Insecticides) and Plant Pathologist (Insecticides) with four years regular service and Senior Scientific Officers (Bioassay) and Agronomist (Herbicides) with five years regular service.
5. In the above backdrop, Shri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the applicant states that whereas the duties attached to the Weed Specialists at NPPTI, Hyderabad and of the post held by the applicant are at variance and posting of the applicant in NPPTI, Hyderabad his expertise would be utilized to the minimum as the post not being interchangeable. Placing reliance on a decision of the coordinate Bench in Shri Shanker Kumar Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors. (OA No.1923/2002), learned Counsel would contend that decision rendered on 10.07.2003, in all fours, covers the present issue.
6. Shri Sinha contended that transfer in mid session is also not congenial to good administration.
7. Learned Counsel would contend that unless the re-designation and merger of the posts is notified, the post of Weed Specialists not being created under Insecticides Act, 1968 and without amendment of the Rules, the applicant, if transferred to Hyderabad, would be highly prejudiced as he would not be considered as feeder category for Joint Director (Bioassay) of which post, Rules are yet to be amended.
8. Shri Sinha also contended that transfer is illegal as it lacked administrative exigency or public interest. It is stated that although the applicant, as per his qualification, has no experience of teaching etc., yet he is being posted out of the cadre and, therefore, transfer order is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
9. On the other Shri D.S. Mahendru, learned Counsel for the respondents stated that on merger, qualification of MSc (Agronomy) is common to all the three categories. It is contended further that merger had already taken place and the recruitment rules are being amended having Weed Specialist as a feeder category and, as such, applicant on a mere choice of his promotion cannot stack his right.
10. Learned Counsel would state that applicant since 1991 was posted at Faridabad and moreover he has not to teach the students at Hyderabad rather senior level government officials are to be taught. Learned Counsel, as regards academic session, would contend that transfer was effected in May, 2005 when the academic session was over.
11. In nutshell, what has been reflected is the transfer where all the officers, who have been re-designated, have been transferred and no exception can be carved out in the case of applicant as the transfer is based on administrative exigency and public interest.
12. Shri Mahendru, in his reply, stated that term Weed Specialist no more exists as it is re-designated as Deputy Director and revised Recruitment Rules are being issued. By comparing of the three posts, it is stated that duties attached to the post of SSO can be altered by provisions followed for requirement of changing techniques and by forming single discipline of various posts including the post held by the applicant under Weed Science, have become interchangeable. It is also stated that the name of the applicant is included in the eligibility list for consideration of promotion to the post of Joint Director (Bioassay) to be held by UPSC and it is denied that the post of Deputy Director (WS) is an isolated post. Learned Counsel would contend that applicant while posted at Hissar in Directorate of Research, HAU, had been teaching and, as such, has experience of it.
13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
14. At the outset, even having been passed a common transfer order by the respondent, the Tribunal is concerned to adjudicate the grievances of a person who has come to the Tribunal and not the grievances of those who have not come before the Tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
15. No doubt, Government is within its prerogative, as a policy decision, to re-designate or merge posts in a particular discipline but the same would not be executable till recruitment rules are amended incorporating necessary amendments as to the feeder category for promotional posts. The post of SSO (Bioassay) though has common qualification as MSc with Agronomy with Agronomist and Deputy Director (WS) but rest of the specialization are different. The post of SSO (Bioassay) mostly deals with pesticides and technique for quality control whereas the post of Weed Specialist inter alia includes teaching experience to post graduate classes. The rules promulgated for the promotional post of Joint Director, which has promotional avenues for SSO (Bioassay), the post of Weed Specialized is not the feeder category for Deputy Director (WS) till these rules are promulgated. On amendment, the applicant would be prejudiced for consideration to the post of Joint Director.
16. From the reply of the respondents, it transpires that the applicant has to teach only Government officials, which he was doing earlier in Hissar, cannot be countenanced as the NPPTI, Hyderabad is different establishment where expertise of the applicant would be of no utility and relevance to the said organization. The difference of amalgamation of post is of no avail as in the administrative exigency it is required that one should be posted only where one's expertise and specialization is of any use to the organization failing which it would not only be against public interest and administrative exigency but also be a burden on exchequer.
17. From the reply of the respondents, it further transpires that duties assigned to the Deputy Director (WS), newly created post, are yet to be finalized. Another contention raised that for the feeder grade of Joint Director (Bioassay), name of the applicant has been included in the eligibility list, cannot be a logical justification as till the recruitment rules for Joint Director are not amended, Deputy Director (WS) is not to be considered as a feeder category and on transfer to Hyderabad, the applicant would not be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director because of his belonging to an ex-cadre post.
18. Merely because the applicant had been working in Faridabad since 1991 cannot be a ground to transfer him to Hyderabad when all other exigencies of service do not warrant such a transfer. However, if the rules are amended and duties are re-defined, respondents are at liberty to transfer the applicant as in that event his right of consideration for promotion would not, in any manner, be jeopardized as he would be a feeder category for the post of Joint Director. Till the time duties are re-defined, transferring the applicant to a place where his expertise, specialization and duties would not only be of no utility but would also not be a congenial step in the administrative exigency.
I am aware of my constrain in a judicial review against transfer but transfer which does not purportedly in the exercise of administrative exigency and rather smacks of mala fides cannot be countenanced though the competent authority at its discretion has every right to post a government servant on All India transfer liability and an employee has no right to pick his choicest posting, yet the decision of the coordinate Bench in a similarly situated case in Shanker Kumar Ghosh v.Union of India and Ors.
19. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, O.A. stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to keep the order of transfer, in so far as it relates to the applicant, in abeyance and he be retained at Faridabad till the recruitment rules are duly modified/amended and duties are re-defined for the post of Deputy Director (WS) and thereafter the respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision regarding transfer of the applicant in accordance with rules and instructions. No costs.