Delhi High Court
Mrs. Rajni Malhotra vs Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Nct Of ... on 8 February, 2019
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 08.02.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 1338/2019 AND CM APPL. 6084/2019
MRS. RAJNI MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Adv.
versus
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
A.K.CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 24.08.2016 in OA No.
2314/2014 and order dated 19.07.2018 in RA No. 232/2014 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in short 'CAT', whereby,
the prayers made by the petitioner, in effect, seeking directions to the
respondents to transfer the petitioner to Civil Defence Organization and be
posted as Sr. Staff Officer, came to be dismissed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that initially, the petitioner was
appointed as Instructor Civil Defence and posted with the Women's Wing of
Civil Defence in the Directorate of Home Guards and Civil Defence, earning
03 (three) upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression
(MACP) Scheme. Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil Defence
came to be bifurcated in the year 2009 with the issuance of the Gazette
Notification dated 05.03.2009. On the bifurcation so given effect to, the
petitioner came to be assigned to the Directorate General of Home Guards at
her option. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2012, she requested
for her transfer/posting to Directorate General, Civil Defence against the
post of DSO/Company Commander/Sr. Instructor, but, it did not yield any
result. This resulted into filing of OA No. 1105/2013 before CAT, which
came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. It resulted into
rejection order dated 19.06.2014. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred
OA No.2314/2014 before CAT seeking quashing of the said communication
and granting the relief of her transfer to Civil Defence Organization with
desired posting. This OA came to be dismissed vide the impugned order
dated 24.08.2016. Petitioner sought review thereof, by filing RA No.
323/2016 inter alia quoting the instance of one Sh. Rahul Sudan - said to be
similarly placed as the petitioner. In other words, in the Review Application
she asserted for the reliefs on the ground of parity as well. This Review
Application (RA) came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated
19.07.2018. Aggrieved of the impugned orders, the petitioner has now
approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
3. Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though,
the Directorate General of Home Guards and Directorate General of Civil
Defence were bifurcated, the process of transfer from Home Guards to Civil
Defence and vice-versa, was never closed, and, that, there were many
instances of inter se transfer. Also in his submissions, the case of one Sh.
Rahul Sudan was akin to the case of the petitioner and in view thereof,
denial of the similar consideration to the petitioner, was violative of her
fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions
strenuously made on behalf of the petitioner, we do not find any merit
therein.
5. At the onset, we observe that the petitioner has already superannuated
and thereby, the prayer for transfer from the Directorate General of Home
Guards to the Directorate General of Civil Defence, in any event, has
become infructuous. Be that as it may, the petitioner on her part equally fails
to point out for any policy of inter-se transfer or promotion, amongst the two
departments/organizations of the Directorate General of Home Guards and
that of Directorate General of Civil Defence. It is also not her case that after
bifurcation in the year 2009, the two departments/organizations i.e. the
Directorate General of Home Guards and the Directorate General of Civil
Defence were maintaining a common seniority list. In the absence thereof,
the petitioner cannot claim any vested right for the relief(s) asserted to by
her. Merely because a post in the promotional grade was lying vacant in the
other organization, and she was desirous to occupy it on account of some
eligibility factor weighing in her favour, ipso facto, cannot be a ground for
her transfer and promotion. In the absence of a vested right founded upon a
well laid policy or a decision by the concerned Authority, the relief(s)
sought are wholly unfounded.
6. As for the case of Sh. Rahul Sudan, CAT has taken note of the
peculiar facts and circumstances under which the Home Department took
the decision on the recommendation of the Directorate General of Home
Guards in consultation with GNCT of Delhi to transfer him to the
Directorate of Civil Defence. In other words, even his case was not a case of
transfer simpliciter on account of a vested right in his favour. Contention of
violation of fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 thus,
equally fails.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in the petition.
8. Dismissed.
A.K.CHAWLA, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
FEBRUARY 08, 2019
rc
