ORAL ORDER :
(As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice.P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman)
Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu , the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This application is filed challenging the impugned transfer order dated 20.6.2009 and the rejection order dated 6.7.2009, wherein the representation of the applicant dated 22.6.2009 was rejected. The representation was made requesting cancellation of her transfer order dated 20.6.2009 and for retention.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant belongs to IRS 1989 batch and while she was working as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax at Eluru, she has been transferred to Visakhapatnam in the same capacity. Aggrieved by that transfer, she filed O.A.No.550/2009 before this Tribunal. In the said OA, it was contended that she made a representation on 22.6.2009 and her representation is not yet disposed of. In view of the same, this Tribunal disposed of the application at the admission stage on 29.6.2009 directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 22.6.2009 and pass appropriate orders within one week and till then the applicant shall be retained at Eluru. Thereafter, the impugned rejection order dated 6.7.2009 has been passed stating that the representation is placed before the Local Placement Committee and the said Committee rejected the representation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present application is filed challenging that the applicant is an SC candidate and there are existing instructions from DOPT that even while ordering promotions, SC/ST employees should, as far as possible, be transferred to not far away places from their native districts and that their transfer should be restricted to places nearer to their home town and that the applicant has not completed 3 years in the Station and that one can be retained at a place for a period of 3 years, and therefore, the applicant ought to have been retained at least for one year as the applicant's old parents are suffering from ill-health.
4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the scope of this Tribunal in the case of transfers is very much limited and that as per the directions of this Tribunal, the representation made by the applicant was duly considered and rejected, and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to find fault with the impugned orders.
6. The points that arise for consideration in this application are -
(i) whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside?; and
(ii) whether the applicant is entitled to be retained at Eluru?
7. Points (i) and (ii):
It is not disputed that in the case of transfers the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to interfere is very much limited. This Tribunal can interfere only where an authority, who passed the orders of transfer, has got no jurisdiction, the transfer is in violation of the transfer policy guidelines, if any, or the transfer order passed is malafide. None of these grounds exist in this case. The only ground pleaded is that the applicant belongs to SC community and she has been transferred to a far of place though she is living with her old parents at Eluru, which is her native District. It is not disputed that the applicant belongs to All India Services and she has been working as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and she has been transferred within the State from Eluru to Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam is not a far off place from Eluru. The only inconvenience pleaded by the applicant is that she has to look after her old parents at Eluru, who are staying at Eluru, as there are none to look after them. If that is the case, she can as well take her parents along with her to Visakhapatnam, which is not a far off place and is within the same State. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case where this Tribunal can interfere with the transfer orders or the rejection of the request of the applicant for retention.
8. Hence, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no Order as to costs.