Full Judgment
G. Shanthappa, Member (J)
The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the order No. HPB(O)767/2011 dated 29.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Shri R. Singaravelan appearing for the applicant and Shri R. Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel for the Railways along with R. Krishnamurthy, Panel of advocates for the railways.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, representing the second respondent. Though the notice served on the 3rd respondent but there is no representation, on 14.02.2012, he was placed Ex-Parte.
4. The brief facts of the case according to the applicant are :
The applicant is working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Enginer, Carriage amd Wagon at Perambur in Chennai. One Shri J. Nagesh had filed OA 902/2010 against the Railways in which the present applicant was the 4th respondent in the said OA.
5. The said OA was disposed of on 15.09.2010, the operative paras are extracted here under:
“Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. R. Krishnamurthy has filed a reply statement. Para 25 of the reply statement is as under:
“As regards para 5(6) and 5(7), it is submitted that though the applicant was empaneled for JAG adhoc promotion, he was not promoted due to pendency of the case. With the approval of the competent authority one post of JA Grade is reserved and kept vacant for applicant and hence the applicant's promotion will be considered only after receipt of reply from RDO/Trichy. Hence the allegation of the applicant that the second and third respondents are taking hectic efforts to promote the fourth respondent as JA Grade Officer is not correct.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel that the without going into the merits of the case, the OA may be closed recording the statement of the respondents in Para 25 of the reply statement. Accordingly, recording the statement of the respondents in Para 25 of the reply statement, the OA is closed and hence the interim stay already granted stands vacated.”
The said OA was closed and interim order of stay already granted stands vacated. The applicant in the said OA No. 902/2010 had filed a Review Application No.39/2010. The said review was allowed. The impugned order in the OA dated 07.07.2010 was quashed, and directed the official respondents to promote the applicant as Junior Administration Grade Officer by placing him as senior than the respondent no 4 to 6, with monitory benefits.
6. The respondent no 4 in the said OA ie., the applicant in the present O.A. had challenged the order in RA 39/2010 dated 22.02.2011, before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in WP No. 6928/2011. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant a interim order of stay on 21.03.2011. Subsequently on 14.07.2011 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant an interim order Interim Suspension. When the order of the Hon'ble High Court was not implemented, the present applicant filed CP No. 1618/2011 in which the second respondent in the present OA was the second respondent in the CA. Subsequently on 25.11.2011 the railways have complied the direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 14.07.2011 and reverted Shri J. Nagesh to the original post. Subsequently, the applicant has been temporarily posted to Ernakulam as Senior DME vice V. Rathnasabapathy the third respondent in the present OA. The applicant is challenging the said order of transfer in the present OA on the ground of malafide, keeping in mind, the applicant apprached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1618/2011 in which the 2nd respondent is made as party respondent by name. The applicant has been victimised and transferred in the place of the third respondent. The applicant is challenging the said order of transfer that the impugned order is tainted with malafide motives and illegalities.
7. The impugned order of transfer is made in the middle of the Academic year without assigning any reason and not following the transfer guidelines. It is not known as to why the said order of transfer is to be passed urgently, that too in the middle of the academic year without stating any reason what so ever. The applicant belongs to scheduled caste community and he is victimised by the order of transfer against the Government orders governing transfer of SC and ST candidates. The impugned order is not only unreasonable and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India which is against all the Principles of Natural Justice, fair play, equity and good conscience.
8. The applicant has filed Typed set of papers dated 28.03.2012, in the open court on 12.6.2012, a copy of the said papers were served on the respondents. A mere perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2011, itself would clearly reveal that Shri V. Ratnasabapathy is Sr. DME/II/TVC (Trivandram) and working as Sr. DME/ERS. There is no post of Sr. DME at Ernakulam. As per the said order the said Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy had taken over charge at Trivandram as evidenced from the order dated 26.9.11 vide an office order dated 24.10.11, the DRM, Trivandram has distributed the duties between Sr. DME I and Sr. DME II in Trivandram Division. As per the said order the said Shri. V. Rathnasabapathy is posted as Sr. DME/ERS and he is directed to look after the coaching activities of North of KCVL as well as Wagon Activities in the entire TVC Division. He is also directed to be in coordination with Head Quarters for POH Coaching Exchange etc. It is submitted by the applicant that while distributing duties by an office order dated 24.10.11 the DRM has to no jurisdiction to give him different posting as Sr. DME/ERS when Shri V. Ratnasabapathy as per the parent order dated 22.9.11 was temporarily transferred and posted as Sr. DME/TVC and subsequently posted as Sr. DME/II/TVC at Trivandram by another order dated 21.10.11. The applicant further submits that the allotment of duties must be in consonance with the original order dated 21.10.11 and it should not run contrary to the parent order dated 21.10.11 as the DRM has no authority in law to do so. The applicant further submit that the said Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy who is the 3rd respondent herein taking advantage of the above orders is working only in the Head Quarters and once in a month for two days he used to visit Ernakulam. He neither joined as Sr. DME II Trivandram nor joined as Sr. DME/Ernakulam. Above all by an order dated 1.12.11 he is given additional charge to look after duties at Head Quarters Office in connection with Carriage works modernization works. Further his pay bill is drawn only at Chennai and not at Ernakulam. Thus the orders are passed with a view to help the 3rd respondent and now he is temporarily tranferred and posted as Sr. DME/ERS at Ernakulam which is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Application. Instead of reverting him, the post itself is downgraded with a view to give him posting at Chennai in the Head Quarter Office. That is the reason he had filed Contempt against the General Manager by mentioning his name before the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant submits that the order of Transfer is challenged on malafide grounds by impleading the 2nd respondent in his personal capacity.
9. The respondents have vehemently opposed the OA and filed their respective reply statement. The first respondent has filed a separate reply statement in which he has contended that the applicant was earlier temporarily transferred and posted as Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer/ Madurai vide office order no HPB(O)96/2011 dated 15.2.2011. The applicant has carried out the transfer without attributing in the motive. One Shri Nagesh was also temporarily transferred and posted as Divisional Mechanical Engineer / Salem on 19.08.2010, the said order was complied.
10. The 3rd respondent who is senior to the applicant has been temporarily transferred and posted as Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer/ Trivandrum / Ernakulam and the order was also carried out. One Shri J. Nagesh has been referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to ascertain the genuineness of community certificate. The verification is still pending with the State Level Scrutiny Committee and final report has not been received. The applicant was temporarily transferred and posted as Senior DME/ERS on 29.11.2011. There is no connection between the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the transfer of the applicant, and the same is imaginary in nature. It is only a mere coincidence that the Contempt Application was closed and the applicant was transferred on the very next day. The volume of coaching and wagon activities at Ernakulam Railway Station has increased tremendously. The service of the Junior Administration Grade Officer at Ernakulam is found essential. Monitoring the coaching activities at Ernakulam is required in order to improve the service provided to passengers. Similarly the wagon activities are also to be monitored for smooth movement of freight. The post of Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer / Ernakulam is directly linked to safety of coaches and passenger service. The applicant is a experienced officer and therefore it was decided to utilise his service as Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer / Ernakulam. The applicant is liable for transfer to work anywhere in the Indian Railways in the interest of nation. The applicant is not having any school going children and the allegation that the order of transfer is passed in the middle of the academic year is baseless and does not substantiate with any documentary evidence.
11. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have referred the judicial proceedings in OA 902/2010, RA 39/2010 and in compliance subsequently orders dated 17.03.2011 in which the J. Nagesh was posted as Deputy CME Project / HQ. Subsequently the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was pleased to grant an interim order on 21.03.2011 and 14.07.2011 in WP No. 6928/2011. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court Shri. J. Nagesh was reverted by an order dated 27.11.2011. Subsequently, the CP was closed on 28.11.2011.
12. The allegation of the applicant is that the order of transfer is tainted with malafide motives and illegalities and it is passed to victimise the applicant for his filing Contempt Petition is not correct. The temporary transfer is restored when the service of the applicant is required at outstation for a period less than 6 months. Permanent transfer orders are issued when the service of the officers are required for more than 6 months. The service of the officers are required in connection with passengers amenities at Ernakulam and to provide better service to the passengers and also maintain punctuality. The transfer of the applicant was ordered purely on administrative interest in order to maintain the assets and also to provide better services to the passengers, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Kashmir Singh, (2010) 13 SCC 306. The relief of the applicant cannot be granted for their request for the dismissal of the OA.
13. The second respondent has filed separate reply statement denying the allegations of malafides. The allegation that the respondents with a view to victimise the applicant for filing Contempt against him in personal name has chosen to pass the order of transfer, transferring the applicant from Perambur to Ernakulam. The applicant has contended that the transfer is tainted with malafide motives and illegalities and passed to victimise the applicant for filing the Contempt Petition in the Hon'ble High Court. The allegations are factually incorrect and the same is deliberately with ulterior motive. The second respondent submits that he has no ill-will or bias against the applicant and that there is no absolutely no basis to hold that because the applicant had filed the Contempt Petition against this respondent by name the impugned order was passed. In so far as the allegation that this respondent with a view to victimize has filed a contempt petition against him in his personal name has passed the order of transfer is hereby denied as factually incorrect and the same is deliberately made with ulterior motive. The respondent submits that he has no ill-will or bias against the applicant and there is absolutely no basis to hold that because the applicant had filed the contempt petition against this respondent by name, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order of transfer has no relevance to the filing of contempt petition by the applicant against this respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order of transfer was passed in the routine course and in accordance to the exigencies of work. In the matter of transfer, the procedure in vogue is as follows:
“The respective Head of the Departments will send a note to the Personnel Department regarding the transfer of Officers. Based on that note, the Personnel Department will issue the transfer order after obtaining the approval of the General Manager, if required. In the present case, it appears that on the basis of the request made by the 3rd respondent, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Chennai (Head of the Mechanical Department in which the applicant is working) had sent a note dated 22.11.2011, whereby a proposal was sent to transfer Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernakulam and post him as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Wagon/Carriage Works/Perambur is to be temporarily transferred and posted as Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernaklam vice Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernaklam. This note was received by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/Gazetted on 24.11.2011 and handed over to the dealer on 25.11.2011. The file was put up on 28.11.2011 (26th and 27th being Saturday and Sunday). The proposal was routed through Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/Gazetted, Southern Railway on 28.11.2011 and thereafter the file was circulated to me for approval. Since the applicant happened to be a Junior Administrative Grade Officer and the competent authority is General Manager to pass the order of transfer considering the proposal sent by the Chief Mechanical Engineer, in my capacity as General Manager, I approved the proposal on 28.11.2011 and the order of transfer was signed on my behalf on 29.11.2011. Therefore, in the routine course, the impugned order of transfer was made on and personally I have no ill-will or bias against the applicant. The impugned order of transfer has no relevance to the contempt petition filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that on the next of closure of contempt petition, the order of transfer was passed is hereby denied as factually incorrect.’ The impugned order of transfer has no relevance to the filing of Contempt Petition by the applicant against this respondent.
14. The order of transfer was issued in the routine course and in accordance with the exigencies of work. The respective Head of the Departments will send a note to the Personnel Department regarding the transfer of officers. Based on that note the Personnel Department will issue the transfer order after obtaining the approval of the General Manager (if required). In the present case it appears on the basis of the requests made by the third respondent Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Chennai (Mechanical Department in which the applicant is working) had sent a note dated 22.11.2011 whereby the proposal was sent to transfer Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernakulam and posted him as a Deputy CME Wagon / Carriage works Perambur vise Shri R. Manimaran, Deputy CME Wagon / Carriage Works/ Perambur (the applicant) is to be temporarily transferred and posted as Senior DME, Ernakulam vice V. Rathnasabapathy, Senior DME, Ernakulam. This note was received by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer / Gazetted on 24.11.2011 and handed over to the dealing clerk on 25.11.2011. The file was put up on 28.11.2011 (26 and 27 being saturday and sunday). The proposal was routed through Deputy CPO / Gazetted, Southern Railways on 28.11.2011 and thereafter the file was circulated to the second respondent for approval. Since the applicant happened to be a Junior JAG Officer and the competent authority is the General Manager to pass the transfer of order sent by the CME, in the capacity of the second respondent as General Manager he approved the proposal on 28.11.2011 and the order of transfer was signed by him on 29.11.2011. In the routine course, the impugned order of transfer was made on and personally the second respondent has not ill-will or bias against the applicant. The Contempt Application was closed on the next day of the order.
15. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the first respondent. The applicant has clarified that he was not temporarily transferred and posted as Senior DME, Madurai but he was ordered to look after the post of Senior DME, Madurai in addition to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, HQ held by the applicant vide order dated 15.02.2011. Shri Nagesh was only the Senior Mechanical Engineer at HO and posted as DME/ SA vide order dated 19.08.2010. The applicant was transferred from Deputy CME/CandW/HQ, Southern Railways, Chennai to Deputy CME/Coach Manufacturing Carriage works Perambur vide order dated 24.05.2011. The transfers were carried out by the applicant in the interest of the administration. The third respondent was transferred along with the post of Deputy CME, GoldenRock to Senior DME II, Trivandrum vide order dated 21.10.2011. Earlier to the order he was transferred and posted as Senior DME, Trivandrum vide order dated 22.09.2011. There is no post of Senior DME II at Ernakulam and it is only at Trivandrum and hence even if the transfer is given effect into the applicant cannot join at Ernakulam for want of post. The second respondent who has been impleaded in the personal capacity has not filed in the counter and the counsel for the railways cannot appear for him in the personal capacity. The third respondent has not yet been relieved officially (and he is still working) at HQ, Chennai, reveals that there is no neccessity of the post at Ernakulam as mentioned in the reply statement.
16. The respondent 1 and 2 have filed a reply to the rejoinder which was allowed by the Tribunal in which it is stated that the applicant was detailed to look after the duties of the post of Senior DME in addition to his own vide order dated 15.02.2011 and on the basis of this order the applicant has assumed the charge of Senior DME, Madurai on 15.02.2011. The applicant has relinquished the charge of the post on 25.04.2011. Shri J. Nagesh, Deputy CME was temporarily transferred and posted at Salem as Senior DME vide office order dated 22.09.2011. One JAG post of Deputy CME Golden Rock was transferred to Trivandrum Division and operated as Senior DME/II Trivandrum vide order dated 21.10.2011 and the third respondent was temporarily posted as Senior DME II, Trivandrum against the post transferred to Trivandrum division. The contention of the applicant is that there is no post of Sr. DME at Ernakulam is denied. In fact the DME, Trivandrum Division had posted the third respondent herein as the Senior DME, Ernakulam vide order dated 24.10.2011. While considering the urgent need of an officer to be posted to look after the coaching activities of the North of KVCL. The order of temporary transfer was issued to the applicant based on the exigencies of work and there is no restriction that an officer should not be transferred in the middle of the academic year.
17. The following principles regarding transfer orders which have been settled by various judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
1. The transfer of an employee is not only an incidence but a condition of service.
2. No Government employee has any legal right to be posted at a particular place / station for ever.
3. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be the outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be violating statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Court / Tribunal does not interfere with such order as a matter of routine.
4. Transfer is necessary in public interest.
5. The transfer of an employee on administrative ground or in public interest is not be interfered with, unless it is illegal, or in violation of statutory rules and is done with malafide intention.
6. Guidelines for transfer are not statutory rules even though transfer is not violation of any guidelines, the court would not ordinarily interefere unless the transfer is a malafide or any violation of statutory rules.
18. I have to test whether the impugned order is in violation of statutory rules or transfer guidelines or the order of transfer is shown to be a outcome of malafide exercise of power.
19. The applicant has urged that the respondents with a view to victimise the applicant for following the Contempt case filed against him in personal name and making them to revert Shri. J. Nagesh to pass the order of transfer, transferring the applicant from perambur to Ernakulam by an order dated 29.11.2011. The impugned order of transfer is passed in the middle of academic year without assigning any reasons and it is liable to be set aside. After careful consideration of the pleadings it is admitted that the applicant has no school going children. The applicant in his rejoinder has admitted that he has no school going children. Considering the admitted facts I am of the view that the applicant has no school going children, so the ground taken by the applicant that the order is passed in the middle of the academic year, has no legs to stand.
Accordingly, the said legal ground contended by the applicant is rejected.
20. Another main ground that the applicant has been victimised for filing the contempt case against the 2nd respondent in personal name. On the admitted facts one Shri J. Nagesh had filed OA No. 902/2010. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.09.2010, closed the OA. The interim stay already granted was vacated. While closing the O.A. the observation of this Tribunal as per Para 3 of the order which is extract as follows :
“3. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. R. Krishnamurthy has filed a reply statement. Para 25 of the reply statement is as under :
“As regards para 5(6) and 5(7), it is submitted that though the applicant was empaneled for JAG adhoc promotion, he was not promoted due to pendency of the case. With the approval of the competent authority one post of JA Grade is reserved and kept vacant for applicant and hence the applicant's promotion will be considered only after receipt of reply from RDO/Trichy. Hence the allegation of the applicant that the second and third respondents are taking hectic efforts to promote the fourth respondent as JA Grade Officer is not correct.”
21. Subsequently the applicant in the said O.A. had filed Review Application No 39/2010. The said review was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2011. The operative portion of the order as per para 9 of the order is as under :
“9. For the reasons stated above, the review application is allowed in the following terms :
a. The impugned order dated 07.07.2010 of the second respondent is quashed in so far as the applicant is concerned and consequently the official respondents are directed to promote the applicant as Junior Administrative Grade Officer by placing him as senior than the respondents 4 to 6.
b. The applicant is entitled for the above said promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all monetary benefits arising therefrom.
c. The above exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
d. There will be no order as to costs.”
22. Subsequently the applicant challenged the said order of this Tribunal in RA 39/2010 in OA 902/2010 dated 15.10.2010. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant a interim order of stay (Annexure A-III) in WP No.6928/2011. Subsequently, the applicant has obtained the interim order of suspension issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned WP vide order dated 14.07.2011. When the said order was not complied the applicant has filed Contempt Petition No. 1618/2011. In the said Contempt Application the second respondent in the present O.A. was the second respondent in the Contempt Petition.
Naturally, while filing the contempt application the respondents should be made as party by name, otherwise contempt petition would be defective. Accordingly, the applicant had impleaded the second respondent as party respondent by name. The respondents have denied the allegation of malafides. The second respondent in his reply statement has denied in view to victimise the applicant for filing the contempt petition against him in his personal name as passed the order of transfer is factually incorrect and the same is deliberately made with ulterior motive. The second respondent has clarified that he has no ill-will or bias against the applicant and there is absolutely no bias that because the applicant had filed the Contempt Petition against him by name, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order of transfer has no relevance to the filing of contempt by the applicant against the respondent. Before issuing the order of transfer there is a procedure to pass orders in which the second respondent has mentioned that the order of transfer was issued in the routine course and in accordance with the exigencies of work. Para 5 of the reply statement filed by the 2nd respondent is extracted below :
“It is submitted that the impugned order of transfer was passed in the routine course and in accordance to the exigencies of work. In the matter of transfer, the procedure in vogue is as follows:
The respective Head of the Departments will send a note to the Personnel Department regarding the transfer of officers. Based on that note, the Personnel Department will issue the transfer order after obtaining the approval of the General Manager, if required. In the present case, it appears that on the basis of the request made by the 3rd respondent, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Chennai (Head of the Mechanical Department in which the applicant is working) had sent a note dated 22.11.2011, whereby a proposal was sent to transfer Shri V. Rathnasabapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernakulam and post him as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Wagon/Carriage Works/Perambur vice Shri R. Manimaran, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Wagon/Carriage Works/Perambur (the applicant) and Shri R. Manimaran, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Wagon/ Carriage Works / Perambur is to be temporarily transferred and posted as Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernakulam vice Shri. V. Ratnasabapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ernakulam. This note was received by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer / Gazetted on 24.11.2011 and handed over to the dealer on 25.11.2011. The file was put up on 28.11.2011 (26th and 27th being saturday and sunday. The proposal was routed through Deputy Chief Personnel Officer / Gazetted, Southern Railway on 28.11.2011 and thereafter the file was circulated to me for approval. Since the applicant happened to be a Junior Administrative Grade Officer and the competent authority is General Manager to pass the order of transfer considering the proposal sent by the Chief Mechanical Engineer, in my capacity as General Manager, I approved the proposal on 28.11.2011 and the order of transfer was signed on my behalf on 29.11.2011. Therefore, in the routine course, the impugned order of transfer was made on and personally I have no ill-will or bias against the applicant. The impugned order of transfer has no relevance to the contempt petition filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that on the next day of closure of contempt petition, the order of transfer was passed is hereby denied as factually incorrect. Therefore, allegations made in the application under reply are without any material facts and the same has no basis. Therefore, the vague plea of malafides is liable to be rejected as the same has no factual basis.”
23. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for either side and also the pleadings mentioned above it is very clear that the second respondent has no malafide or ill-will against the applicant. The impugned order has been passed in a routine manner. There is no relevance to the fact of filing contempt application in which the second respondent is impleaded by name. Normally, while filing the contempt application the alleged should be made as a party and respondent by name. I am of the considered view filing contempt application has no relevance to the order of transfer.
24. It is contention of the respondents that the applicant is a experienced person. The impugned order of transfer is passed in the exigencies of service. There is no connection between the case pending before the High Court of Madras and the transfer of the applicant and the same is imaginary in nature. It is only a mere that the contempt application was closed and the order of transfer was issued on next day. As contended by the respondents the volume of coaching and wagon at Ernakulam Railway Station has increased tremendously. The service of JAG officer is found essential. Montioring the coaching activities is required in order to meet the service provided to passengers. Similarly the wagon activities are also to be monitored for the smooth movement of freight. The post of Senior DM /Ernakulam is directly linked to safety of coaches and passenger service. The applicant is a experienced officer and therefore it was decided to utilise his services as Senior / DME /Ernakulam.
25. The applicant has all india service liability in the impunged order has been passed in the public interest. I am of the considered view there is no malafide intention against the applicant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the applicant has been transferred in the public interest, on the reasons that he is a experienced man and his services are very much essential at Ernakulam. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation limited Vs. Shri. Bhagwan and another 2002 SCC (LandS) 21. para -5 of the order is as under:
“On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant Rules to which our attention has been invited to, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now well settled and often reiterated by this Court that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any transfer of the employees from one office or project or unit to any one of the other as long as the seniority of such an employee is protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the Project undertaken to which the respondents have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we see no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance.” Since the impugned order of transfer is an administration order, judicial interference in a administration matter is not required as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBI-VS-Anjan Sanyal- 2001 SCC (LandS) 858.
I have applied the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I-VS-S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357.
26. For the foregoing reasons I am of the considered view the applicant has failed to establish that impugned order of transfer is illegal, tainted with malafide and is issued with a malafide intention only to victimise the applicant for filing a contempt petition against second respondent before the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents have justified in their defence that the impugned order of transfer has been passed in an administrative exigencies. The applicant is a experienced officer. His services are very much required at Ernakulam in public interest. The learned counsel for the applicant contended, as per Para 12 of the reply statement temporary transfer is resorted when the service of the officer is required at out station for a period less than 6 months. From the date of order till today 6 months are elapsed, the order becomes infructous. The learned counsel for respondents submitted, the competent authority will take decision in an administrative side. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant has to report for duty at the place of posting, subsequent to report the applicant has to request the competent authority for transfer or retention. Under the facts and circumstances of this, I direct the 2nd respondent, consider the request of the applicant, and to take decision on administrative side in a pragmatic approach within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the representation if so submitted. This order will not come in the way to take administrative decision as stated above. Accordingly the OA is liable to be dismissed.
27. Accordingly OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.