B.SELVIN Vs. AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are presently working as State Co-ordinators in the Agency for Non-Conventional Energy and Rural Technology, otherwise known as ANERT. The first petitioner entered service as Field Assistant on 6.6.1988 ad the second petitioner entered service as Junior Technical Assistant in March, 1991. Later the posts to which the petitioners were appointed were re-designated as Technical Assistant and still later re-designated as State Co- ordinator. The first petitioner was working in the Head Quarters of ANERT at Trivandrum and the second petitioner was working in the District Office of ANERT at Trivandrum. In this writ petition they challenge Ext.P1 order dated 6.10.2012 issued by the Director of ANERT shifting the post held by them and consequently transferring them to Kannur and Kasargod Districts. The principal contention raised in the instant writ petition is that the Director of ANERT is not competent to shift the post of State Co-ordinator from the Head Quarters of ANERT or from its District Office at Trivandrum to Kannur and Kasargod as was done in Ext.P1 and that the said power is vested in the Executive Committee of ANERT. Reliance is placed on rule 27(5) of the Rules and Regulations of ANERT.

(2.) A statement dated 8.11.2012 has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Later an additional statement dated 18.12.2012 has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In the first of the statements it is stated that the Director of ANERT has only shifted the post of State Co-ordinator from the Head Quarters and the District Office, Trivandrum to the District Offices at Kannur and Kasargod and that he has not created a new post of State Co- ordinator. It is however, conceded that the post of State Co- ordinator was created as per G.O.(P)No.9/2009/PD dated 18.9.2009. In the additional statement dated 18.12.2012 it is stated that the Director is empowered to deploy staff and to shift posts in the exigencies of service. Reliance is placed on rule 26(5) (g) of the Rules and Regulations of ANERT in support of the said contention.

(3.) FROM a reading of rule 26(5)(a) it is evident that the Director can only perform such acts and duties and exercise such powers under the regulations and bye-laws of ANERT and also those which may be delegated or assigned to him by the Governing Body and the Committee from time to time. The respondent has no case that the Executive Committee of the ANERT or its Governing Body has delegated to the Director the power of the Executive Committee recognised in rule 27(5) to create posts within the budgetary provisions. Rule 26(5) (g) stipulates that the Director may from time to time assign such functions and duties and delegate such powers as he may deem necessary to the officers and staff of the Agency whom the General Body, Committee or he himself may consider fit for the proper working of the Agency. The said provision would only confer on the Director, the power to assign functions and duties and delegate powers to officers and staff of the agency. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on rule 26(5)(g) to support the impugned order. That apart, during the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for ANERT conceded that by the Government order dated 18.9.2009 posts of State Co-ordinators were sanctioned only in the Head Quarters and in the District Office of ANERT at Trivandrum. The respondents have no case in either of the statements that post of State Co-ordinator exists in any of the other Districts in the State. In such circumstances I am satisfied that the Director of ANERT could not have on his own shifted the posts held by the petitioners to Kannur and Kasargod respectively as was done by him by Ext.P1 order. Necessarily therefore, it has to be held that the impugned action of the Director cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P1 order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the Director of ANERT to the extent it relates to the shifting of the post of State Co-ordinator from the Head Quarters of ANERT at Trivandrum and the District Office of ANERT at Trivandrum. Consequently, Exts.P2 and P3 orders also shall stand quashed. It is however, clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the competent authority from creating the post of State Co-ordinator in the various District Offices or from transferring and posting the petitioners or any other persons working as State Co-ordinator against such posts.