GRACY THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19474 of 2018 comes up in appeal challenging the judgment passed thereon by the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition, she challenged Ext.P2 order by which she was transferred from Kottayam to Guwahati. The appellant is working as Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner in Rubber Board. Earlier, she approached this Court challenging the same transfer order by filing W.P.(C)No.16468 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation dated 18.5.2018 made to alleviate the grievances against Ext.P2 order. Evidently, the request was to cancel the transfer and to retain her in her home station itself. That representation was rejected as per Ext.P7. It is in the said circumstances that the aforementioned writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) The core contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in terms of Section 25 of the Rubber Act Ext.P4 is applicable to the Rubber Board and since the transfer was effected as per Ext.P2 dehoring Ext.P4 it is liable to be interfered with. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in Rubber Board, transfer of employees is governed by Office Order Nos.1009 dated 10/03/2017 & 1033 dated 16/05/2018 and transfer of the appellant had been effected in accordance with the said guidelines. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the said respondents submitted that the appellant is having only less credit point owing to the fact that she had only 13 months of North-Eastern region service and got no service at all in non-traditional area. It is also submitted that Sl.No.7, Cecil Varkey, is the next person having lower credit point and he was also transferred from Kerala to Guwahati. In short, the contention is that there is absolutely no invidious discrimination in the matter of transfer. In fact, the appellant has also no case that he was discriminated as can be seen from her pleadings in the writ petition as also in the writ appeal.