NEMI CHAND Vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made by the petitioner, AEN, to the order dt. 26/6/2019 passed by the Secretary (Admn) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) transferring him from the post of ACOS Jhunjhunu to AEN (O&M) Gudha.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner an A.En., following several transfers i.e. ten within a period of five years, vide order dt. 6/3/2019 came to be transferred from Malsisar to ACOS Jhunjhunu. The respondent No. 2 Gaurav Dhaka posted there since 16/6/2014 was transferred as AEN (O&M) Gudha. The case of the petitioner is that within a period of four months he was again transferred vide order dt. 26/6/2019 from ACOS Jhunjhunu to AEN (O&M). Gudha, merely to accommodate the respondent No. 2, who had earlier been posted as ACOS Jhunjhunu since 16/6/2014. Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that the stark fact that the respondent No. 2 was brought back as ACOS. Jhunjhunu within four months of his transfer on 6/3/2019 makes it evident that the impugned transfer order dt. 26/6/2019 is not actuated either by an administrative exigencies or public interest. It is instead vitiated by malice in law inasmuch as the discretion to transfer has been; exercised merely to accommodate the respondent No. 2 at Jhunjhunu. That cannot be the purpose of the vesting of discretion in an employer to transfer an employee. Until discretion to transfer is reasonably exercised, it will mutate into feudalistic patronage which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law. Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that a transfer within four months, as in the petitioner's case, is inherently contrary to public interest. A transferred employee necessarily takes time to comprehend the work and familiarize in an office and if he is transferred out before he can so do and perform work in public interest it would be detrimental both to administrative exigencies and public interest Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that in the reply to petition, the respondent AVVNL merely vaguely postulates "nigam interest" in transferring the petitioner. That fig leaf cannot and should not cloud the gross unreasonableness and arbitrariness in transferring out the petitioner within four months and bringing in his place respondent No. 2, who had earlier been posted there in different-capacities for about five years.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 AVVNL has filed reply to the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same on the ground that an employee has no right to challenge his transfer order when transferred in "nigam interest " of which it is the best judge. Since an employee is transferred on administrative exigencies he is duty bound to comply rather than rush to the Court as if vested right has been infringed.