UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, both the petitions have been heard together. The respondent/applicant had challenged his order of transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'the CAT') and sought appropriate directions from the Central Government.

(2.) BY the order dated 22nd November, 2013, which is impugned in the present writ petitions, the CAT accepted his challenge and quashed the order transferring the applicant to U.P. (East) region on 24th May, 2013. The brief facts giving rise to the petitions are as follows.

(3.) WHEN the first transfer order of the respondent was passed, the remaining service of the respondent was about 3 years 8 months and that in terms of the Guidelines, the Central Government was perfectly competent to transfer him, since the respondent still had over three years services left before superannuation. Learned counsel highlighted that the successive waves of litigations lodged by the applicant/respondent have, in fact, reduced his period of service now left, and that the respondent/applicant is now to attain superannuation on 30th September, 2015. It was, consequently, urged that scope of judicial review in regard to orders of transfer is extremely limited, barring cases of established malafides, illegalities i.e. conflict with the statutory provisions, and blatant disregard to binding norms. It was lastly argued that the applicant's successive efforts have led to a situation where the administration is left with little, or no option, and the CAT has repeatedly interfered in each posting order. Counsel emphasized that the only ground made out is that the place of posting is in violation of the guidelines existing in that regard. However, those guidelines are not in violate and cannot override the administrative exigencies in every case. In these circumstances, learned counsel submitted that this Court should set aside the impugned order.