M.G. SREEKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged his transfer to Madurai in the O.A., which was rejected. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised multifarious grounds against the transfer. It is submitted that the petitioner has two children studying in a school and college and he also has to look after his aged parents. His wife is also employed. The petitioner has been permitted to enrol for Ph.D programme in the Cochin University of Science and Technology, which is mid-way. It is also argued that the fact that there are four transfers within a short span of five years indicates clear malice and ill will of the Departmental officers.

(2.) At the outset, we do not intend to look into the allegation of malice and ill will especially since the four transfers asserted by the petitioner were thwarted by appropriate litigations. The petitioner has joined the service of the respondent on 31.01.1990 at Arunachal Pradesh. After three years in the 'hard station' posting, the petitioner was transferred to Kerala and he joined on 03.09.1992. It was in the year 2015 he was first transferred from Kochi to Port Blair. The petitioner challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the transfer on the ground that he had already completed his tenure in a 'hard station'. In 2016, he was transferred to Hyderabad Division, which was also challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the transfer on the ground that the order was issued by an authority who did not have the competence to order transfer. Later in the year 2017, the petitioner was transferred to Mehaboob Nagar, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal. However, in an Original Petition (CAT), it was directed that while effecting transfer the total tenure of a person continuing in Kerala shall be reckoned and not the station seniority and it was also directed that if the petitioner could be accommodated in any suitable vacancy if available in Kerala, the same shall be done.

(3.) The present transfer is to Madurai, within the same circle. The petitioner had various contentions with respect to the minimal work in Madurai Division and the heavy workload in Kochi; which were rejected by the Tribunal. It is not for the employee to decide the arrangement of work and we perfectly agree with the Tribunal. Insofar as the enrolment in a Ph.D programme, the Tribunal found that the same was permitted by his controlling authority subject to his not compromising his service obligations. We cannot fault the said finding too.