MERCY HELEN Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF PHILOSOPHICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by her transfer from Delhi to Lucknow, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of her transfer order dated 01.12.2008. The operation of the impugned transfer order was stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 06.03.2009 and the said interim order is continuing till date.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Director (Planning & Research) with Indian Council of Philosophical Research (in short 'the Council') vide appointment letter dated 13.05.2003 with a stipulation that she may be required to serve in any office of the Council anywhere in the country. Her initial posting, however, was at New Delhi. In December 2004, she was given the additional charge of the post of Director (Administration & Finance) and was later on given further additional charge of Member-Secretary also. The additional charge of Member-Secretary remained with her till 13.10.2007 when Member-Secretary of respondent No. 1 Council was appointed. She was relieved of the additional charge of Director (Administration & Finance) w.e.f. 23.01.2008 upon appointment of Dr. Surendra Kumar as Director (Administration & Finance). Now, vide impugned transfer order dated 01.12.2008, she has been transferred as Director, Academic Centre of respondent No. 1 Council at Lucknow. She, aggrieved by her said transfer, has challenged the impugned transfer order inter alia on the following grounds:

(3.) In response to this writ petition, Mr. Godabarisha Mishra, Member-Secretary, Indian Council of Philosophical Research at New Delhi has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has wilfully and knowingly distorted and misrepresented the facts. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner under the Rules & Regulations of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) is liable to be transferred anywhere in the country and is liable and obliged to serve the respondents in any of the offices whether Lucknow or any other part of the country. The transfer of the petitioner is stated to have been effected in the administrative exigencies as the Academic Centre at Lucknow is meant to undertake multifarious activities and provides a high level academic atmosphere. It is denied that the petitioner has been transferred to a non-existing post, as alleged in the writ petition. It is stated that a Director looked after the affairs of the Centre at Lucknow until 2005 when he was transferred to New Delhi office. The Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) is stated to be one organisation and the Academic Centre situated at Lucknow is stated to be its integral part. The ICPR currently had three Directors in the same scale of pay and privileges and they are designated as Director (Administration & Finance), Director (Planning & Research) and Director (Academic). These Directors have been assigned different responsibilities for administrative reasons and convenience. Any of the Directors could be asked to function from the Academic Centre in Lucknow, if the exigency of service and public interest so warrants. The respondents have stated that Dr. Arun Mishra, Director (Academic) was functioning from the Academic Centre in Lucknow. The Director posted at Lucknow, in addition to his/her assigned responsibilities, also acts as the Administrative Head of the Academic Centre by virtue of seniority and is, therefore, appended the designation of the Director of the Academic Centre. The respondents have explained the reasons in their counter affidavit that compelled them to transfer the petitioner from Delhi to its Academic Centre at Lucknow The reasons that weighed with the respondents to transfer the petitioner at its Academic Centre at Lucknow were that she is the senior most among the three Directors and that she had acted earlier as Director (Administration & Finance) and also looked after the work of the Member-Secretary, when that post was vacant. The other reason for transfer of the petitioner to Lucknow was that she had earlier served at Lucknow as Programme Officer of the ICPR at its Academic Centre. For all these reasons, the respondents felt that the petitioner would be more suitable and would be able to re-locate the Academic Centre in the newly acquired building and would help to plan and build a new campus than the other Directors. The respondents have denied that the impugned transfer is on account of any malafide much less as alleged by the petitioner in her petition. They have also disputed the personal medical grounds set up by the petitioner to stall her impugned transfer. The respondents have submitted that the impugned transfer of the petitioner is in the administrative exigencies and in the best interest of the ICPR and they have, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the present writ petition.