HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.19555 of 2022
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings
dated 30.06.2022 issued by the first respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Municipal Assistant Engineer in the second respondent Corporation, in the year 2014 he was transferred to the third respondent Corporation and he rendered 7 ½ years of service at Vizianagaram; in the seniority list, out of 29 Municipal Assistant Engineers of Zone-I, petitioner is at Serial No.3 and hence his case has to be considered on priority basis; petitioner is also suffering from certain ailments and hence he requested for being posted at the second respondent office; without considering the request of the petitioner, one person by name N. Srinu, Municipal Assistant Engineer working at Vizianagaram was transferred to the second respondent's office at Visakhapatnam and the petitioner was transferred to the fourth respondent's office at Parvathipuram; the said Srinu has completed only 4 years of his tenure at Vizianagaram and he did not request for a transfer; there are some more vacancies available at the office of the second respondent at Visakhapatnam; hence, the Writ Petition.
Learned Government Pleader has produced written instructions of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli, Guntur district through letter dated 27.07.2022, wherein it is stated that the total strength of Municipal Assistant Engineers available at the second respondent office is 58 and there are 22 vacancies and that there are vacancies in other Municipalities also outside the GVMC, Visakhapatnam and in order to fill up the vacancies in other Municipalities located under Zone-I consisting of 2 Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam districts, petitioner was posted to fourth respondent office; the request of the petitioner is not feasible for consideration as 36 Municipal Assistant Engineers are already working in GVMC, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that Parvathpuram Municipality is one of the choices opted by the petitioner.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one person by name N. Srinu is posted to the second respondent office, even though he did not complete 5 years of service cannot be gone into by this Court as according to the transfer guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.116, Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 07.06.2022, the transfers on administrative grounds can also be made even before the period of 5 years and if a person completes 5 years at a station he has to invariably be transferred.
The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as the petitioner stands at Serial No.3 in the seniority list, his case has to be considered on priority basis. The seniority list is not the basis for transfer in any organization and even according to the guidelines issued for transfer.
The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from certain ailments, but as seen from the representation dated 10.06.2022 made by the petitioner, it is only stated that he requests transfer on health grounds without specifying what the health problem is. In the said GO, particularly certain categories of health issues which will be given priority for transfer is mentioned and the petitioner does not say that he comes to one of such category.
Apart from that, petitioner does not dispute the fact that the fourth respondent's office is one of the options exercised by him. 3
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey1, held that if the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or in violation of the guidelines, the same can be interfered with by the Courts and that the employee cannot be transferred as a punitive measure. But, in the present case, petitioner could not show the violation of any of the guidelines or attributed any mala fides.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the petitioner could not demonstrate violation of transfer guidelines issued through G.O.Ms.No.116, Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department, dated 07.06.2022, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the impugned transfer proceeding. However, if the petitioner files any representation, the competent authority is directed to examine the same and take appropriate decision in the matter.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:27.07.2022 Nsr 1 2004(12) SCC 299 4 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.19555 of 2022 Date:27.07.2022 Nsr