P.R. ANAND KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.252 of 2012 dated 09.03.2012, by which the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed challenging an order dated 10.02.2012, whereunder, the writ petitioner was transferred from Chennai to Hyderabad.

(2.) THE petitioner entered the services of the respondent Organisation (Military Engineering Services) as Surveyor Assistant, Grade-II during 1985. Subsequently, the said post was re-designated as Junior Engineer, in which capacity the petitioner is now working. By order dated 08.11.2011, the petitioner was transferred from Chennai to Vizag. The petitioner requested for retention at Chennai, which request was negatived by the respondents by order dated 21.01.2011. The petitioner filed O.A.No.83 of 2011, before the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it violates paragraph 36(b)(c) of the Transfer Guidelines issued by the respondents. The Tribunal by order dated 26.7.2011, allowed the Original Application and set aside the order of transfer giving liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, if considered necessary keeping in view the guidelines prescribed. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal by order dated 29.10.2011, the order of transfer was cancelled. Subsequently, by an order dated 10.2.2012, the petitioner was transferred to Hyderabad. The petitioner made a request after cancelling such transfer and since there were no favourable orders, he once again approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.252 of 2012. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 09.03.2012, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted the paragraph 36(b) and (c) cannot be read in isolation, but it should be read in conjunction with paragraph 57 of the guidelines and this was not taken note of by the Tribunal while issuing a direction in O.A.No.83 of 2011. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had already given his choice of Station for transfer in CML-10, during July 2010 and accordingly, the posting to Hyderabad was made by order dated 10.2.2012. Further, the exercise of calling for choice station and adherence to time schedule cannot be done in isolation as the petitioner was one among others posted under CML-10. Further, it is submitted that the guidelines of transfers are not statutory rules and even if transfer is in violation of any guideline, the Court would not ordinarily interfere unless it is malafide or in violation of statutory rule. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is in the third place in the tenure turnover posting issued during 2012 and the petitioner has been in Chennai for more then seven years, when a person should not be retained in a particular station for more than three years. It is further submitted that the order of transfer which was impugned before the Tribunal was an administrative order and no malafides have been attributed and the same is valid.