VINOD KUMAR BHAT K. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a Section Officer of the State Motor Garages Department, vide Government No. 16 -TR of 2013 dated 12.03.2013 was transferred and posted in the office of the Transport Commissioner J&K, Jammu and by the same order Private respondent, Syed Nazir Ahmad, was transferred from the office of Transport Commissioner and posted in the State Motor Garages. Vide Government Order No. 06 -TR of 2014 dated 03.02.2014, the petitioner has been 'transferred back to his parent department i.e. State Motor Garages Department' and likewise the private respondent has been transferred back to his parent department i.e. the Motor Vehicles Department. Feeling aggrieved by his transfer back to the State Motor Garages, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issue of writ of Certiorari to quash order No. 06 -TR of 2014 (supra) and writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to allow him to serve in the office of State Motor Garages Department till he completes his normal tenure of posting there.

(2.) HEARD . I have perused the record.

(3.) OFFICIAL respondents have opposed the petition by filing objections, initially filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 and adopted by respondents 1 to 3. Likewise private respondent has also filed his objections. Stand of official respondents, briefly, is that the petitioner is borne on the cadre of the State Motor Garages, his service is governed by J&K State Motor Garages Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rule, 2004 and he is not transferable to any other department. Petitioner s transfer to Transport Commissioner s office was not in accordance with norms as he was not transferable to that department though he could have been sent to that department on deputation. It is further contended that even the transfer of petitioner to Transport Commissioner s office was premature having been made after less than seven months stay but he did not agitate his transfer on that score at that time. Allegation of mala fide has been denied and it is contended that benefit of Transfer Policy is not available to the petitioner as petitioner was not transferable to a department other than the State Motor Garages. It is contended also that transfer of a Government servant is exigency of service and that the guidelines for transfer are regulatory only and not mandatory. As regards sending of the copy of the transfer order to Special Assistant of the concerned Minister, it is stated that even the copy of earlier transfer order of the petitioner was sent to Special Assistant of the Transport Minister as per the routine official business.