FIDA IQBAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE posted as "Floriculture Development Assistant", Srinagar the petitioner was transferred to work as "Agriculture Extension Officer" Watergam sub division of District Baramulla, in place of one Ghulam Jeelani Zargar. Aggrieved thereby he challenges the transfer order on twin grounds of having been passed malafide and without jurisdiction. In reply the respondents while denying allegation of malafides have also pleaded that the impugned order of transfer having been passed by Director of the respondent/department who was fully competent to pass the same does not suffer from incompetence. During course of submissions the appealing counsel have reiterated their respective pleadings.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. In the first phase, it transpires that petitioner hold the substantive post of Junior Extension Assistant and had been posted as "Floriculture Development Assistant" in a stop gap arrangement on temporary basis in his own pay and grade though with charge allowance as admissible under rules, and as such does not belong to gazetted service of the department and thus the power of his transfer would ordinarily vest in respondent/Director. Even petitioners previous order of posting whereunder he was posted at Lalmandi too appears to have been passed by the Director of Agriculture only, and now when he is sought to be transferred away from there he finds the Director to be incompetent to order his transfer. Viewed thus, the petitioners objection on ground of respondent/Directors incompetence to pass his transfer order does not appear to be well founded.

(3.) REGARDING malafides the petitioners case is that his transfer has been ordered to prevent him from discharging his duties as "President Agriculture Officers Welfare Association" in which capacity he has lodged a complaint against Director in the State Accountability Commission and declined to withdraw the same despite insistence from respondent/Director. On examination this plea also appears to be hollow for the reason that first, the petitioner had admittedly ceased to be the President of Officers Union of respondent/department and thus the malafides attributable to the respondent/Director on that count automatically loose the basis; secondly that no particulars of the alleged complaint reportedly lodged by petitioner against the Director have been given which reduces the allegation to a balled assertion, devoid of substance; and thirdly that being President of an employees association does ordinarily not mean an impunity from administrative subordination nor can it be ready made excuse to avoid compliance of administrative orders on the pretext of alleged animosity against trade union leaders. That trend, as a matter of fact, requires to be discouraged at the level of union leaders themselves only to prevent their legitimacy from being doubted on the pretext of personal involvements.