V SUNDARRAJAN S/O VENU Vs. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL TEACHERS TRAINING AND RESEARCH; K S RAJU, CHAIRMAN, BOG, TTTI, NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order dated 15.3.2002 in No.E.II/OP/2001-02 and for directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in the first respondent Institute at Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner, who was initially appointed as helper under the first respondent, which is fully aided by the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources, in course of time got himself technically qualified and was posted as a technician. He had made request to transfer him to any Engineering Department in the Unit at Chennai. Initially such request had been turned down. Subsequently to his dismay, the petitioner had been transferred to a unit at Kerala under the impugned proceedings. Such transfer order has been challenged in the writ petition mainly on the ground that transfer has been made for a collateral purpose.

(3.) Whatever may be the worth of the contentions raised in the writ petition, it is obvious that in view of the subsequent events, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. It is obvious that even though initially an interim order of stay was granted, subsequently it was found that before stay was granted, the petitioner had been relieved and subsequently, the stay order was vacated. Initially the transfer of the petitioner was considered to be one made on the basis of his own request disentitling him to claim transfer allowance available at the time of transfer. Subsequently, however, petitioner himself made a request to the authority to treat his transfer as if on normal and regular basis. Such request has been subsequently accepted and transfer has been treated to be one made on regular basis and not on request of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner joined at the new place of posting and apparently claimed transfer allowance. In the meantime, the petitioner has also given in writing that he did not want to proceed with the writ petition. Subsequently, by filing additional affidavit, the petitioner claims that such writing has been given on the basis of coercion and not given voluntarily. In a writ petition it is difficult to resolve such hotly disputed questions of fact.