Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ch. Narasimha Swamy vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 16 March, 2007
ORDER Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr. T.V.V.S Murthy, Ld. Counsel representing Mr. K. Venkateswara Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. V. Rajeswara Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the official respondents and Mr. S. Rama Krishna Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 to 6.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant questioning the Memo No. B/G.T./2005-06 dated 13.7.2005 issued by the 1st respondent in illegally and unjustly transferring the fourth unofficial respondent from Naguluppalapadu S.O. to SPM Ongole Bazar T.S.O. Ongole, ignoring the legitimate claim of the applicant for his Transfer to Ongole Bazar T.S.O. By questioning the said order of transfer, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 625 of 2005 and this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.11.2005 has held that regarding the posting order passed by the department, in the absence of any malafides or arbitrariness pleaded against the respondetns, the order cannot be said to be arbitrary and malafide or illegal one. In that view of the matter the application filed by the applicant cannot be entertained as he has no right to challenge the order of transfer. The order of transfer is a consequence to the service. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the applicant cannot be granted. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, while dismissing the said O.A., this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 28.5.2005 and 14.6.2005, which were pending at the relevant point of time and communicate the order to the applicant.
3. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the 1st Respondent vide its order dated 16.1.2006 communicated his order to the applicant. The contents of the same are exacted below:
As represented in your representation cited above, this office has not received any application from any one for transfer to the post of SPM, Ongole Bazar SO till 14.6.2005 and no service union has alleged by you has also interfered to manipulate the rotational transfers ordered by this office till 4.6.2005.
Sri K. Elisha was posted as SPM, Ongole Bazar since he is the senior most official among all the volunteers who opted for the post of SPM, Ongole Bazar. This office is not aware of anything about plan of one of the service unions for declination of Sri K. Elisha, the posted SPM, Ongole Bazar on the grounds of ill health to the post of SPM, Ongole Bazar and get him posted in Chirala town or to the post of SPM, Ravuripet S.O. This office is also not aware of anything about canvassing of Sri K. Veeraswami Reddy, posted SPM, NG Padu, S.O. About his posting as SPM, Ongole Bazar till 14.6.2005. Hence your representation cited above could not be taken into account.
4. Questioning the said order in the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records relating to Memo. No. B/G.T./2005-06, dated 13.7.2005 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasam Division and its connected Lr. No. ST/24/38/V/KW, dated 12.7.2005 issued by the Postmaster General, Vijayawada (Not communicated to the applicant) and also the rejection of his representation in Lr. No. BI/OA/625/2005, dated 6.1.2006 of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasam Division, Ongole and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and malafide and violatve of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently hold that the applicant is entitled for transfer and posting as S.P.M. Ongole Bazar S.O. in place of the unofficial respondent No. 4 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
5. The Official Respondents as well as the Private respondents have contested the application by filing separate counter reply.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents had taken the preliminary objection that this application is not maintainable as it is barred by the principles of rejudicata for the reason that the transfer order which has been questioned in the instant O.A, has already been questioned and dismissed by this Tribunal in earlier O.A. No. 625/2005 on 25.11.2005. I find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondetns and, therefore, this application is not maintainable in so far as it questions the posting order dated 13.7.2005 which is annexed as Annexure-1 at page 11 of the O.A. However I find that the order dated 16.1.2006 is the order communicated by the 1st respondent to the applicant pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal and, therefore, the same cannot be hit by the principles of resjudicata. I have gone through the representation of the applicant dated 28.5.2005 and 14.6.2005 which were annexed at pages 27 and 28 respectively to the O.A. In the said representations the applicant has interalia requested for posting him as S.P.M Ongole Bazar S.O. and he further stated that he is the next senior to Sri Elisha and on completion of tenure he exercised his first preference for Ongole Bazaar TSO.
7. From the counter reply filed by the official respondents, I find that although the representations of the applicant requesting for posting him at Ongole Bazar TSO was recommended by the respondents but, the respondents at the time of posting has considered the request of the respondent No. 4 and passed the posting order dated 13.7.05 (Supra). I find from the reply of the official respondents that the position of the applicant in the gradation list is at Sl. No. 3, whereas the position of the respondent No. 4 is at Sl. No. 9 and the postion of Sri Alish, the respondent No. 5 is at Sl. No. 1.
8. However, the respondents have filed reply but in their counter reply, in regard to the impugned order dated 16.1.2006, nothing has been said as to how they have considered the representation of the applicant & K. Veeraswamy Reddy and on what grounds 4th respondents had been considered for posting at Ongole Bazar TSO, ignoring the request of the applicant. In any case, if the applciant goes on transfer to any place on request, he cannot claim T.A. & D.A. for his transfer. Generally, seniority has no role to play in the matter of transfer. However, it appears from the impugned order as well as the application and the counter reply filed by the official respondents that there is a administrative policy in the matter of transfer which keeps space to follow seniority in case of transfer and posting. It is well settled position that evenif there is violation of any guide-line, the Tribunal cannot interefere with such violation unless it suffers from vice of malice. More-over, I find that the very posting order dated 13.07.2005 had already been questioned before the Tribunal earlier and the Tribunal has already dismissed the same with its observation as mentioned above.
9. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interefere with the posting order of the applicant and the private respondents at this stage. However, in future, the resondents shall consider the case of the applciant to post him at Ongole Bazar TSO after he completes the tenune in the present place of posting provided he makes such request before completion of his tenure at his present place of posiing. The O.A. is ordered accordingly. However there shall be no order as to costs.