BAHADUR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Sports, Government of Haryana, and the Principal-cum-Director, Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Sonepat) (for short, the school) respectively have been challenged by the petitioner. He has prayed for quashing of these orders and for his reposting in the school.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of these orders on multifold grounds. His first plea is that having been appointed in the service of the respondent-school as clerk with effect from 31.5.1975, he has become a member of the service of the School and, therefore, he cannot be transferred outside the service of the school. Second ground of challenge is that while holding the post of Store-Keeper, he cannot be transferred as Assistant because cadre of Storekeeper is different than that of the Assistant, petitioner's third ground of challenge is that the impugned order of transfer is neither in public interest nor in the interest of service. Last ground of challenge is that the impugned transfer has been effected due to malafides of respondents No.2, namely, the Principal-cum-Director of Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai.

(3.) Shri J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate, argued that the respondent- school is an autonomous body functioning of which is controlled by the Board of Governors and it is not a part of the Government's department. According to the learned counsel, being a member of the service of the school, the petitioner cannot be transferred outside that service without his consent. Second argument of Shri Verma is that even if the respondent-school is treated as a part and parcel of the Department of Sports, transfer of petitioner outside the cadre of Storekeeper is impermissible. His argument is that transfer of the petitioner from the cadre of Storekeeper to the cadre of Assistant amounts to termination of his lien in the cadre of Storekeeper and such an action can be brought about only after a regular inquiry or with the consent of the petitioner which he never gave. Third contention of Shri Verma is that the impugned transfer has been brought about on account of mala fide intention of respondent No.2 who was annoyed with the petitioner because the petitioner had challenged appointment made by respondent No.2 on the post of Quartermaster. Shri Verma also argued that though the transfer is an incident of service, the Government cannot exercise its administrative power of transfer except for good reasons having nexus with the public interest or interest of service. Learned Assistant Advocate General drew my attention to various documents filed with the reply to show that respondent-school is not a separate juristic person but is a part and parcel of the Department of Sports, Government of Haryana. Ms Bahri argued that sanction of various posts in the respondent-school by the Government unmistakably establishes that it is a part of Department of Sports and Youth Welfare and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the impugned order of transfer is outside the service of the school. She further pointed out that the petitioner's lien has been maintained on the post of Storekeeper in the service of the school and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that his right in the service of school has been adversely affected. In regard to change of cadre. Learned Assistant Advocate General argued that posts of storekeeper and Assistant form part of the ministerial service and both the posts carry identical pay scale and, therefore, the impugned order of transfer cannot be termed as an order effecting change in the cadre. She countered the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding mala fides by contending that the petitioner has not impleaded that person as a party to the writ petition against whom allegations of mala fides have been levelled and, therefore, the court cannot record a finding on the allegation of mala fide. Mr. Bahri further argued that impugned order of transfer has been passed in the interest of service and in the interest of administration and that it is not necessary for the respondent-school to disclose reasons for effecting transfer of the employees.