H S TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI A. S. Raizada, learned counsel for appellant. SHRI Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. This intra-Court appeal arises from the order of learned Single Judge dated 17-8-2010 passed in W. P. No. 10392/2010(s) whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant was initially appointed as Regional Director, Western Region, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal. He drew our attention to the letter dated 5-12-2006 contained in Annexure-P/1 and submitted that in unequivocal terms, it was mentioned in the application that the appellant has applied for the post of Regional Director, Bhopal. He, however, submitted that in the letter of appointment which is contained in Annexure-P/4 dated 2-6- 2010, the respondents have mentioned that the appellant has been selected for appointment as Regional Director in WRC, NCTE, Bhopal on deputation basis and his services will be governed by the provisions contained in the Department of Personnel and Training OM No. 2/29/91-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 5th January, 1994. Thus there is no justifiable reason for transferring him by the impugned order to Bhubaneswar. He further sought to argue that the impugned order of transfer has been passed only with a view to accommodate Dr. P. K. Sharma-respondent No. 4.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has, therefore, rightly found that the order of appointment issued by the NCTE does not indicate in any manner whatsoever, that the post held by him or the appointment is on a non-transferable post and as such he will always remain at Bhopal during the period of appointment and, therefore, we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Besides that, admittedly, the appellant pursuant to impugned order of transfer has already submitted his joining at Bhubaneswar about more than one month back. The respondents in an unequivocal term have stated that the appellant has been transferred on account of administrative exigency. It is not the case of the appellant that the order of transfer is made in violation of any statutory rule or regulation or the same suffers from vice of mala fide. Further the tenure of posting of the appellant at Bhubaneswar is only for a period of 180 days. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.