SHAHABUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The case of the petitioner in short is that while working in Group `c' post (Ministerial Cadre), the petitioner was promoted on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as Assistant Personnel Officer for short "apo", which is a group `b' post in the office of Chief Works Manager, Ajmer (WEstern Railway ). It has been contended that service conditions of Group `b' Officers in WEstern Railway is controlled by Headquarter Office of respondent No. 1 i. e. General Manager (WEstern Railways) at Mumbai. The contention of the petitioner is that under the relevant rules, the transfer of a railway servant is permissible provided the competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another provided that except: (i) on account of inefficiency or (ii) misbehaviour or (iii) on his written request.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner after his posting at Ajmer Division of the Western Railway, was not allowed to complete the normal tenure of 4 years which is required for any post as per the policy guidelines issued in terms of letter dated 10. 7. 1989 of the Chairman Railway Board. IT was categorically pointed out that after joining w. e. f. 11. 1. 1994 as Assistant Personnel Officer (Stores) he was posted vide order dated 14. 8. 1996 in the office of Divisional Railway Manager. This was changed vide order dated 9. 6. 1998 by which the petitioner was shifted from Divisional Office to Railway Rec-ruitment Board, Ajmer. Again, in October, 1998 the posting of the petitioner was changed from Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer to Workshop as Assistant Personnel Officer (Works) where he joined on 27. 10. 1998 and ultimately vide order dated 10. 3. 1999 the petitioner was transferred from Ajmer to Jaipur and one Shri S. M. Johri (respondent No. 4) was posted at the place of the petitioner i. e. Assistant Personnel Officer (Works) at Ajmer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already represented to the appropriate authority on 12. 3. 1999 assailing the impugned-order of transfer. We are of the view that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner with regard to appropriate authority deciding the said representation in accordance with law if not so far decided. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. .