Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr D Muthuchelvan vs M/O Agriculture on 20 January, 2023
1
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00452/2022
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Dr. D. Muthuchelvan,
S/o Dhanavelu,
Aged about 49 years,
Working as a Principal Scientist
at Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Hebbal, Bengaluru- 560 024
R/at Flat No. F-1, Vishal Enclave,
1st Main Road, Ganganagar,
Bengaluru- 560 032. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri M. Narayana Bhat)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Krishi Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Rep. by its President,
Krishi Bhavan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110 114.
3. Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Rep. by its Director, Izatnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-243 122.
2
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. The Chief Administrative Officer,
Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh-243122.
5. Indian Council of Agricultural Research/
Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Regional Campus,
Rep. by its Joint Director,
Hebbal, Bengaluru-560 024. ....Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Sr. Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
a) To quash the order bearing No. F.32-2/2009-E.I dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure A-6), vide which the applicant has been transferred from ICAR-IVRI, Bangalore to ICAR-IVRI, Mukteswar Campus.
b) Issue direction granting the applicant all the consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant was recruited as a Senior Scientist in the year 2010 by ICAR. He belongs to the Agricultural Research Service. The applicant was appointed and posted at Mukteswar in the year 2010 vide office order dated 05.10.2010.3
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) Applicant was facing difficulties while working at Mukteswar having regard to the harsh weather. He made repeated representations to transfer him from Uttarakhand to Karnataka. There is only one Centre in South India which is at Bengaluru. The said representations were dated 26.06.2016, 30.01.2018, 05.10.2018 and 02.5.2019.
c) By an order dated 24.4.2020, the applicant was transferred to Bangalore. Despite the said order, he was not relieved by the controlling office at Mukteswar. Finally, another office order came to be passed on 29.7.2020. Thereafter, one more office order came to be issued on 19.12.2020. Finally, applicant was relieved and he reported at Bangalore on 21.12.2020.
d) Subsequently, another office order came to passed dated 07.11.2022 by which the applicant has been transferred and posted to Mukteswar Campus once again. The said order has been passed in utter disregard to the official memorandum and the transfer guidelines which are applicable to the ARS Scientists of ICAR. Applicant is yet to complete 2 years posting at Bangalore. A person who is posted to a particular place is entitled to continue for a period of 5 years.
e) Transfer on own request of the Scientist is mentioned at Part II of the guidelines at Annexure-A7. Posting of the Applicant to Mukteswar is opposed to the said guidelines. Applicant is yet to complete 5 years at Bangalore. The Respondents have transferred him before completion of 2 years from the date of his reporting at Bangalore. A Scientist who 4 OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench is posted to a particular station is normally not disturbed for a period of 5 years. The minimum tenure allowed is 5 years. Now this transfer has been done before completion of 2 years.
f) There are several Scientists in the same Department, and the same laboratory doing similar work that is being discharged by the Applicant. They are working at Bengaluru ever since their date of joining. They are not transferred. The action of the respondents in picking the Applicant and transferring him and posting him back to Mukteswar is high handed and discriminatory. Applicant has 2 daughters. One of them is studying in 8th standard and the other one has just completed her 12th standard.
g) There is no public interest in the said order except stating that it is passed in public interest. Applicant has worked at Mukteswar for the last 10 years. He was posted to Bangalore in the month of December 2020. Applicant is working as a co-investigator in WRL project at Bengaluru which is half-way through. Hence, the applicant has sought to quash the transfer order on the ground that it is against the transfer policy as well as discriminatory and arbitrary.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute was established in 1889 based on the recommendation of the Indian Cattle Plague (Rinderpest) commission for documentation of prevailing diseases in the country 5 OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench and for the supply of anti Rinderpest serum to several affected countries. The institute has regional stations located at different places of the country- Mukteswar (Uttarakhand), Palampur (HP). Kolkata (WB), Bengaluru (Karnataka) and Pune (Maharashtra) with the Head Quarters being located at Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh). Each regional station is having different mandated activities. The mandate of ICAR-
IVRI, Bengaluru campus is to work on improvement of FMD vaccine and its quality control. The Mukteswar campus conducts research on important animal viruses like PPR, bluetongue, animal poxviruses etc.
b) The applicant before joining the service had his PhD degree in Veterinary Virology from IVRI, Bareilly, and Post-Doctoral Fellowship from Lahey Clinic Medical Foundation. Burlington, USA. The applicant had worked on PPR Vaccine for his PhD thesis and joined the IVRI as Senior Scientist and posted at IVRI, Mukteswar. Since, then he has been involved in research and quality control of PPR vaccine.
c) The Government of India has assigned the responsibility to IVRI, Mukteswar for eradication of PPR from India. For this purpose, the service of the applicant is essentially required in the field of Virology. The transfer of the applicant was made in public interest on the recommendations of intra-institutional Committee for the essential requirement at Mukteswar for the above stated reasons. 6
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) In the case of transfer on administrative reasons, a scientist can be transferred as per operational needs and requirements of the Institute. The transfer has been made as per the recommendations of the Institutional Transfer Committee. The Mukteswar campus has been given the national priorities for PPR Eradication and it is now recognized by the OIE as a PPR Network Laboratory for North India. The applicant was transferred there, as the scientist is having considerable experience in PPR to deal with the increased work load of vaccine Quality Control (QC) testing, production of diagnostic kits for use in the PPR control program and coordinate all the activities concerning national goal of PPR eradication.
e) The applicant is an experienced Virologist in the field of PPR virus and his presence in the laboratory at Mukteswar campus is a necessity considering the priority attached to PPR eradication by the Govt. of India. Further, OIE has recently recognized the PPR laboratory of Mukteswar as a PPR Network Laboratory for North India.
4. In his rejoinder to the said reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The PPR control program is launched by Govt. of India in the year 2010 and it is an ongoing activity. The said work has been distributed to 3 centres of the IVRI viz., Izatnagar, Mukteswar and Bengaluru campus. IVRI has identified 15 scientists (five from each centre) to complete the said job and the applicant who is at Bangalore laboratory is one amongst them. Every veterinary microbiologist is trained to do 7 OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench research in the field of virology and other microorganisms. It does not mean that the service of the Applicant alone is required at Mukteswar.
There are several scientists who are working in the virus research aspect at IVRI, Bangalore who have been stationed at Bangalore over decades.
b) Apart from research on FMD, at IVRI, Bangalore campus, there is also other research on other viruses. One of them is PPR control program which was earlier being carried out only at Mukteswar. Now the research on the QC testing of PPR vaccine is approved at IVRI, Izatnagar, UP as well as at IVRI, Bangalore. The applicant is working on the said project at Bangalore so also the applicant in OA No. 451/2022. Both of them are working on the said project for the last one year. The applicant is associated with one more important project on FMD research. Applicant was granted with one more project (PPRV Vectored FMDV vaccine under CRP Program) as Co- Principal Investigator at Bengaluru campus. The applicant has put a lot of effort in development of a nanoparticle based FMD vaccine and further research at IVRI, Bengaluru is going on. This is a person centred work and the same cannot be carried on by others, as this involves IPR issues. With a view to derail the researches which is half way through and snatch the credit from the Applicant, the above transfer has been made.
c) The Applicant completed the projects entrusted to him at Mukteswar.
Though an order of transfer was issued to him much earlier on 24.04.2020, he was asked to work till the completion of the projects 8 OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench entrusted to him. It is only after completion (Annexure-A3), he was relieved on 19.12.2020 (Annexure-A4). The work that was being performed by the applicant has been entrusted to other scientist (Dr Chandrasekar) and now he is on the said job at PPR virus laboratory, IVRI, Mukteswar for the last 2 years. By posting the applicant to the said place, once again would cause hardship to him, as well as to the Applicant, as the Applicant will have to discontinue the project to which he is posted at Bangalore as of now.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. In the present case, the applicant who had been transferred to Bangalore from Mukteswar on request, after serving at Mukteswar for a period of more than 10 years, has been aggrieved by his subsequent transfer back to Mukteswar, after a period of less than 2 years. This has been done on the ground that his services are required at Mukteswar for scientific work in the areas of PPR Vaccine in which he has the required expertise.
7. A perusal of the transfer policy of the ICAR pertaining to transfer of Scientists indicates that the transfer of ARS scientist of ICAR can be made under two categories:
a) Administrative reasons.
b) On own request of the scientist.9
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
8. The previous transfer of the applicant from Mukteswar to Bangalore was done on the basis of his own request after he had worked for a period of more than ten years at Mukteswar. The present transfer of the applicant back to Mukteswar, after a period of less than two years, has been done on the ground of administrative reasons.
9. Under the category of Administrative reasons, a scientist can be transferred by DG, ICAR on administrative grounds on the recommendations of Headquarter Transfer Committee in public interest for the following reasons:
i) To correct imbalance in the cadre strength of scientists in various disciplines at different institutes and also within an Institute including Regional Station/Centre/Unit.
ii) To strengthen human resource in high priority projects for timely implementation of projects.
iii) To provide optimum scientific manpower to institutes.
iv) Performance based relocation to harness the potential of Scientist in Institute/Research Centre.
v) To utilize the experience of a scientist in appropriate fields, backward or comparatively less developed areas.
vi) In case of life threatening medical conditions of self/spouse/ dependants and for those scientists having differently-abled dependants, the transfer shall be dealt on case to case basis. The scientist so transferred shall not be entitled for transfer benefits.
vii) For other reasons for operational and functional requirements of the Council.10
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
10. The transfer of the applicant from Mukteswar to Bangalore was at his own request for which, as per the policy, the scientist can apply for a transfer after completion of minimum retention period of 5 years for category A Stations and 3 years for category B Stations.
11. In the present case, the Institutional Transfer Committee has recommended the transfer of the applicant on administrative grounds for the reason that his services are again required at Mukteswar for work on the PPR Vaccine, in which he is supposed to be an expert.
12. It is seen from the records that the applicant has already worked for more than 10 years at Mukteswar and he had requested for his transfer from Mukteswar to Bangalore citing personal difficulties and the fact that Mukteswar is considered as a hard station. Now his transfer back to Mukteswar after less than 2 years, appears to be unreasonable, since he had already worked at a difficult station for more than 10 years and had come on request less than 2 years back.
13. A perusal of the proceedings of the meeting of Intra Institutional Transfer Committee held on 07.11.2022 indicate the following reasons for recommending the transfer of the applicant back to Mukteswar:
"(i)Given the national priorities for PPR eradication and the expectations from the PPR Laboratory at Mukteswar Campus, now recognized by the OIE as a PPR Network Laboratory for North India, it was decided to strengthen the Mukteshwar lab by transferring Dr. Muthuchelvan, a scientist with considerable 11 OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench experience in PPR, to deal with the increased work load of vaccine QC testing, production of diagnostic kits for use in the PPR control programme and coordinate all activities concerning national goal of PPR eradication."
14. The applicant is challenging this recommendation of the Transfer Committee stating that there are many other scientists who are also having similar expertise, who can very well be asked to undertake this task at Mukteswar. In his pleadings, he has listed names of several other scientists who are working in the virus research aspect at IVRI, Bangalore who have been stationed at Bangalore for decades. He has stated that it is not true that the services of the applicant alone are required at Mukteswar. Applicant has further stated that the respondents have identified 15 scientists to attend to PPR Control program. There are 4 scientists already posted to test the vaccine at Mukteswar.
15. The applicant has further contended that a fresh batch of scientists is currently being recruited by the respondents for which a total of 208 candidates in 47 discipline have been recommended for entry level appointments under ICAR vide the results notified on 12.1.2023. Some of the selected scientists could easily be assigned for the specific work related to PPR Vaccine QC testing, production of diagnostic kits for use in the PPR control programme etc. after their training. The training for these scientists is for a period of 7 months. The applicant would be willing to train these scientists at Mukteswar, if required, for which he could be assigned on temporary duty at Mukteswar for a specified period. 12
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
16. A specific query was put to the respondents for their response to the pleadings made by the learned counsel for the applicant on this issue. The respondents filed a memo in response to the pleadings as follows:
1. The applicant's transfer from IVRI- Mukteswar can be considered sympathetically by intra-institutional transfer committee after the successful completion of the assigned work which can take at least three years.
2. The request can be considered even before the above mentioned time with the joining of new scientists in the relevant field.
17. The stand of the respondents that the transfer of the applicant from Mukteswar can be sympathetically considered by the intra-institutional transfer committee after a period of three years is arbitrary and completely unreasonable, keeping in view the fact that the applicant had been transferred after a stay of 10 years on his own request from Mukteswar to Bangalore on personal grounds.
18. In Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration"13
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
19. In the present case, it appears to be unfair and unreasonable on the part of the respondents to re-transfer the applicant within 2 years on purported administrative grounds, when it has been amply demonstrated by the applicant that a number of scientists who are working at various places at Bangalore and other laboratories, or the scientists recently selected by the respondents could very well be utilised for the proposed scientific work. The intra institutional transfer committee does not seem to have taken these facts under consideration before recommending the transfer of the applicant.
20. The impugned transfer orders issued by the respondents, accordingly, are set aside. The respondents and the intra-institutional transfer committee are directed to reconsider the matter keeping in view the following:
a) That the applicant had only recently been transferred from Mukteswar to Bangalore and has spent a period of only around 2 years at Bangalore. He had already served for around ten years at Mukteswar and had been transferred from there to Bangalore on request, citing personal difficulties.
b) There are many other competent scientists, with similar expertise, at senior levels, available in the organization, who could possibly be considered for deployment for the work relating to PPR vaccine at Mukteshwar.
c) Services of the scientists who have been recently recruited could also be considered immediately after their induction training, in the interest of work.14
OA.No.170/452/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
21. The OA is accordingly disposed of as above. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/