NAVINCHANDRA JERAMBHAI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an officer in Gujarat Education Service Class-I, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 08.02.2011 whereby he is transferred from the post of District Education Officer, Navsari to the post of Professor at R.G.T. College (Ramba Graduate Teachers College) at Porbandar. It is pointed out that the petitioner is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in March, 2013.

(2.) HEARD Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel with Mr.G.R.Thakar, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondents, including Respondent No.4.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Neeraj Soni, appearing for respondents, including respondent No:4, pointed out that all the respondents, i.e. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed affidavit in replies. By referring to the said replies he has vehemently contended that the transfer is an incident of service. The judicial scrutiny of transfer is in very limited circumstance, viz. if the same is in violation of any rule or is actuated with mala fide by the authority competent to order such transfer. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the present case falls in none of these categories which may warrant interference by this Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that if the entire petition is looked at, there is no averment of malafide against respondent No.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the petitioner has not indicated as to why respondent No.4 was after the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also referred to the orders of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18737 of 2007, Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 2008, SLP (Civil) No:25868 of 2008, and consequential charge-sheet issued to the petitioner dated 16.04.2010, which even culminated into punishment order dated 09.01.2012. It is also pointed out that challenge to the said penalty order in Special Civil Application No.7669 of 2012 is also dismissed by this Court on 12.06.2012, against which the Letters Patent Appeal No.919 of 2012 is pending. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also contended that if the tenor of the letters written by the petitioner to different authorities of the Government, which are on record, are seen, it is not only offending and attempts browbeating but it would also amount to gross misconduct. It would also justify the tenor of affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.4, against which the petitioner has serious grievance. It is urged that it would be very difficult for the senior officers to manage the affairs of the department, if even reasonable play is not available to them in pure administrative matters like transfer and posting, even after the approval of the highest authority of the State administration. It is also pointed out that the petitioner being senior most amongst the professors at Porbandar, he is also given the charge of the post of Principal of RGT college at Porbandar, which is also mainly administrative in nature. Learned AGP also vehemently pointed out that the petitioner was posted as Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training at Surendranagar ('DIET', for short) for about 8 years, from the year 2002 to 2010 and almost similar type of work he is expected to do at his present posting. It is pointed out that while working as Principal of DIET at Surendranagar, the petitioner had approached this Court by had claimed that since the pay-scale of the post of Principal of DIET is higher than that of District Education Officer to which the petitioner originally belongs to, he ought to have been paid the pay-scale of the post of Principal of DIET which was already rejected by this Court which is confirmed upto the Honourable Supreme Court of India, as referred above. It is indicated by learned A.G.P. that if the contents of the affidavit-in-rejoinder is taken into consideration, the petitioner himself claims to be an Excellent Teacher and therefore the action of the Government utilizing his services in the field of his choice and excellence should not have aggrieved him at all. It is contended that if the material, which is on record of this petition, is looked at collectively, it shows that as and when any higher authority did not act as per the wish of the petitioner, he has started not only complaining against such authority but he does so in almost abusive language, not befitting a Class-I Officer. It is vehemently contended that, inspite of all hue and cry the petitioner has not pointed out what exactly is the injustice which is meted out to him. It is contended that this petition is not for claiming any relief but in effect is to point out demerits of the officers and the process connected with the impugned order. It is prayed that under the circumstances no interference be made in the impugned order.