Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Parasacty B vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 15 December, 2021
sistant i MA TENRURT bb & O8 SAYING i. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH CORAM > HON'BLE SHRL SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, Member) HON'BLE SHEL T. JACOB, Member (A) (Uhrough Video Conferencing) Parasnety B, SAQ, IOMR-VORC, Puducherry. OS Applicant By Advocate Mis. T. Vv 1. Associates Vs lindian Council for Medical Research, By its Director General, V.Ramalingaswamy Bhavan, Asisart Nagar, New Delhi. 2Jndisn Council for Mediog] Research, By is Asst. Director General (Admin), V.Ramalingaswamy Bhavan, Ansari Nazar, New Delhi. 3.ICMR-Veotor Control Researeh Centre, By its Director, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry 6. a .. Respondents By Advocate Mg. Sunita Kaumari 2 MEA TEMES E in & OA SS S080 ORDER
(Pronuuneed by Hon'ble Shri. Th Jecoh, Member(4}} The reliefs prayed for in this OA is as follows:
"a -Yoceall fer the recands af th:
POP 20TeAnimind aml the consequential refies! Hee ded HES 4 in Sie no. ICMR-VCURE Es ai cet Them cette.
bh Re gall dor the recanis af the 3" cconandant dated 16,12 20 in Pe No {5 Siegal Cell/Q0236, relecting tie rogresanition of the agphcant and As } aside, e And to past any ather-orden's) or dirertionals) ay ceemed ft and: proper in the clraumatances of hin cave acu Gays render justion."
3. The faets of the aase as subauitted by the apolioud ape as follows:
The applicant was working as Administrative Officer in the 2 respondent Reasearch Centres. In January this yesr promotion to the post of Sr. Adninistrative Officer (AAO) was offered to the applicant. The promise was that on promotion the stalf will be acearmmodated In the same place. Nesrly 10 persons were given promotion all aver India and all were posted in their respective InetituteConires where thay were sworking before promotion. Tins, accepted the premotion. The anplicent wes discharging her functions as SAD:
under ihe 2° respondent centre from February onwards. Exactly affer four months, the applicant was axblenly issued witk a transfer order on (1 .06,2020 at 4.00 pm (evening) immediately within few hours, efter aMflee hours, the relieving arder wag also issued and these were sent to the applicant by niall at VA¢ pm. The vailivant geve € nopresentation to ihe 1° respondent an St O3.06.202), followed by another one on LEGS) bringing out the issues < aaa WS SS 3 MA EASRO2T in & DA SS Q008 pointed out sheave. The representations alsa clearly referred to the Covid Niuation and the inshillty to travel, However, there was mea resnonse, Hence the applicant approached this Hon'ble Tribune! in OA 2346/2020, challenging the se:
transicn, This Hon'hle Tribunal was pleased te direct the respondents to paas y restaned speaking order and kept the transfer order in suapension, Pending OA, the applicant bad the benefit of interim order. The Agst. Director General (Admn) has paased an order on 16.12.2020 rejecting the representation. Hence the present OA.
3. The grounds taken by applicant to claim her relief are ay unden-
i. The action of the respondents in transferring the applicant, contrary to the promlise made at the time of promotion is malafide, arbitrary and Wolative of Art 14 ef Constitution of India.
ih The action af the respondents also falls foul ofthe principle of promissory eatgypel, The employes has an option te accept or rafkse promotion. Onnty beoaues the regnemeents made it very clear that all sill accommodate ia the sams station, which is reflected in the common promotion order, the applicany chase to acogpt the promotion.
ui Ef only the respondent had not held ont that her otetion will nee be promotion, then the applicant would have refased promotion. This Spparkanky was lost because of the actlen of the nespemdents. Thus die action of she respondents in tunsfeine the op Rod faant afer making her to scot the moon on the proniss that she will mot be disturbed, is a 4 MA ESSSOS) in GA GSOFR028 malafides. The transfer seas within far months of promotion.
mw Ax per DoPT instructions pramotion has fo be given only based on the & regular vacancies arising due tc promumion, retirenuad, death and creation of peat. The applicant was promoted te the post oF SAO at VCRC. The applicant's SS * .
promotion stands if there is pest, which is also supported by the cadre reviow wuppiiee mooting, LY there is ma post, (hen the promeilion is in vdalation a' DePT imatructions and therefore invalid.
wo WW dhere is ne past af SAO a VCKC, as claimed by the meopomdent, then malafides is writ large in thelr action. The respondents made the applicant believe thet she is haing promuted and posted at VCRC and leter on within 4 a raonths, isaster her on the ground Srat there is no post at VORC wi Shr. Udei Kamer, RMREMS, Pains who was promuted as Sr. Aocauty OMicer and posted at ICMR Head Quarters by order dated ST.OL 2020 has bean allowed ta work in the same office at Paina, in the promoted post and drawing the aglary in the same office, hough no suck post is available there. Shri. Jetbir Singh promutted as SAO to the past at NIN Hyderabad. But he never joined. He 2 way ig now working as SAQ at NEIQR Dicthi where there is no past of SAO. She y Gyan Chand Jain of RMRC Isbalrar promoted as SAO and retained at Inbslpur, where there is no post of SAQ. However, the ayplicant's case wre act considered at all. This is an open case of bias and malafides.
vil Further Shri. Rajesh Pat) 'NOE Mumbai, posted to NEN, Hiadersbad never joined. Another onder was issued retaining him in NUH Miunbai To acconnmodate Smit. Lalda SAO post was diverted from Bhopal $ MEA TESSORT in CAA SSG She is working in Hesdauarters, ACO NOR Delhi posted to Jodhpar was retaimed al the game Institinte af his request. Shri. Gopa Nunue, AQ. NIRT, N, Nydershad, He is posted to Della, never joined and was later posted to WY & retained al NINT, Chennai, For NSIS, Chennai, one post af SAS) sanctioned Is sul vacant and the eligible AO was pramoted ax SAO sent accommodated at NIRT Chennai, Al the abewe facts will clearly reveal en open case af docrimination, againet the applicant.
wi In her representation the applicant has specifically saquested that she be reverted to the lower post if she cannot be retained in Puducherry as SAO. The order of the 2" respondent simply states that there is ne provision. This is patently wrong. In the rejoinder fied by the applicant in QA S86G000, it was specifically pointed out that Rule [1 of IOMR Recruitment Role clearly states Services will apply. Thas PR 1S is clearly applicable.
ix. The respondents alse failed te appreciate the growl seality due to Covid
19. The situation as 8 stands makes it practically impossible for gavel te Hyderabad.
x The Administrative Cadre Review Conunittes has stated that in majer ICMR InstintiesCentres, there should he one Se ACS for of t adinnistralive managemont, Cut of 26 lasiituties onder KOMR, VCR ranks "9, Bh nseks 4" in ane contey te their on peperts and serms, fet for the purpose of coasting the applicant front SS S Se << \ WK 8 ae Paducherrs.
a MA TENSES tr OA. SOOO ai. The 1 respondent is yet & appreciate the pagilion af the applicant who is the mother of two college gaing students and wilh af hypertensive cardionryapaihie hushand are die dhishter of ager) serents (80 vrs wath oo morbiiiies } xi. Neary nine persons were promoted alang wah the eoplicad as SAC), senior io Uic applicant. There are aiter places nearer to Hydersbad. Yt the applicant anne haa heen disturbed, su When work fxen home and video conferencing ere being encouraged all over by the Government, to uproot the applicant and force her to meee away argurad 1000 kms in the present scenario, is not hereane.
xiv, Arbbrariness, malafides, bigs and mon apolioation of sund is wrt large ia the face of rejection order of the 2™ respondent am! the same ie totally unsustainable. Divirent yardsticke and diferent bestment have been meted out to different stati, for reasons best knows: to the respondents. But they are definitely nal banaiide.
4, The respondents have Aled detailed reply denying the averments made in the DA. The applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Ci¥icer vide order dt. 31.01.2020 which is annexed as Annexure Al. The seepormiant States that ihe applicant hes given hor acceptances within ihe < stipulated hinie and had since been working ax Senior Administrative Officer HU the date of her transfer. The applicant was retained at VERO from January to s » MA 125/202) in& OA S8G2020 © transfer is not only a condition of service but also an incident of service and there is ne vested right Irvelved. Purther, in the order dated 31.01.2020 i is clearly mentioned that "they will be governed by the asual termes and conditions of service under the council and will carry forward all the benefits of their past ee ander the Coane"
5. 'The averment made that the applicant will remain at the same place and the promotion wes in Hine with what was promised is totslly false and misconceived as the applicant is bound by other conditions mentioned in the order. Tt is submitted that the order of transfer has been issued with prior approval of the Conipetent Authority in the fimetional interest and as per the servios rules of the Institutions under Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). Moreover, Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC)} does not have a sanctioned post of Senior Adiministrative Officer. It is farther aubmitted thar the applicant was promoted in the month of January, 2020 and was retained at VCRC tl she was transferred on 01.06.2020 which is totally a different cause of action. There is no sanctioned post of Senior Administrative OGeer in VCR, Puducherry, therefore, the applicant cannot he retained in VCRC. The Senior Adiiinisundve Officer of NIN, Hyderabad went on stiperannuation an 31.03.2020, Hence, it was pradent to transfer the applicant to NIN, Hyderabad in compliance of the service conditions and the Institutional necessity. The averment thet the respondent had not held out that her statian vill sot he disturbed and if they had made it known that there will be transiir upon promotion, then the applicant would have declined the promotion ie her own SS ~ SS EI RSW BOY MA FSS:
JeP ipa CLA SR understanding and misconesived and the respondents aarmat be held reapansible for such undersianding of the order, There was no compolaian for accaptanog of promotion and all promoteas were given an opticn for acceptance or rejection which is clearly erumerated al paragraph 3 of the order dated 31.41.9030. The respondent derdes the allegations of malafide whi . WES Grade with an aberior motive to avoid the arder of Gansfer, The reference to onder dated 08.06 20) apes to Show that the eropleyees are (hes to exercise their option of acceptance or refusal for promotion and that they will he governed by the usual terme and conditions of service ander the council The respondent ateles thet (anode is 2 sepanule cause of action sinos transfer is an incident af servies.
>.
& However, respondents ICME submits that the gansfer onlar was not issurd suddenly, The appiicant waa entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Adnunistrative Officer, Hence, the applicant waa promoted 88 per service rules, VCRO did aot have a sanctioned past of Senior Administrative Officer Therefore, as and when the Senter Administaiive Gificer of NEN, Hyderabad went Gn superanmuation oo 3105. 2080 the post fell vacant and the anplicant was. transferred to NIN, Hyderabad for the fimctional interest of the inatitation. Hence, the applicant has been pasted in NEN, Hyderabad which is the nearcat Inatiiate of TOMA from Puducherry wheres the SAQ poet fell vacant. Ht is submitted that the representations were considered by the Competent Authority in HOMR and informed daly on 15.06.2020.5
*._ Hense the appliostion fied Gy the sppllcant ie misconesived, misleading and not sosintaineite ii os much a8 ihe same does set disc : PSS Ea OR RRA ENS 8 MEA TRESS is & Ok SRI Y around established under the low. The respomlent farther states Wat e¢ the autser the Origins! Application is devoid of merits and liable to be diemissed in imine.
&. The respendents have relied on the following frdgements is support of their samtentians:.
a) Union of tnvfia <Vs-S.L. Abbess AIR 1909 SC Bada.
6) Prebodh Sagar Vs. Punjet State Bleotricity Board & Ore CIO SCT 630;
e} RKetagid Gas and Power Private Limited: Ve- RDS Projects Lindiad & Qrs GNF) T SCL So4:
a) National Hydroelectric Power Cor SOG1CDSI at ps go 57% e} BB Royappa ~ Vs. State of TN. 1974 SC S85.
ALC, Sexena -Vs- U.0.1 & Ors 2008) 9 SCC Pp 583:
g} Rajendran Singh & Others Vs. State of UP.& Ore (2009) 15 SCO 178 and
2) --- Ravi Prokesh Gupte, IAS -VS-LUnion of feel & Ors order dated 88 Fel.
2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjeh & Haryana in Cha! Welt Pettlon No. 7857 of 2020,
j) CAT Ahmedabad Bench passed the orders by ) OLA. 1O8/2021 in the case of Shei Jayesh Rameshchandrs Patel vy.
aton of lle and Ans dated 30.03 2001:
8) OATOR2021 tp the case of Shri Bats! Wieykumer ve Union of nals and Aor. dated 30.03.2021 iouihunniuuuuuiasieernniniiniiyisiivectvevessinsittvesevieihstv . WS £5 x ¥ OQGFT ie thes 1D MLA SSSR be CA SERU2U af Indis aid Ann dated 30.03.2021.
wy) OAT L2021 in the case of Shri Shashoat va. Union of Tadia and An dated 30.03. 2021
9. 'The applicant hus filed a rejoinder relierating the fhets stated in the GA.
10. The respondents have filed reply to reioinder, it. Heard leamed counsel for the applicant and learned counsel Air the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on the record.
12. Admittedly this is the 2" round of litigation. The anrlicent Aled OA S46/2020 seeking to set aside the order passed by the respondents tunaferring the applicant from Pudacheri io Hyderabad vide arder dated 61,06.2020. This Tribunal by order dt. 17.11.2020 disposed of the OA with a dirsotion to consider the request of the applicant and pass a speaking order with reasons within a period of HReen days and in the meanwhile, direction was given to keep the transfer order in abeyance. Consequently, the 2" respondent by arder dt. 18.12.2020 rejected the request of the applicant. Aperieved bey the rejection order, the applicant has filed the present OA
13. In the speaking order tae respondents have stated that the Sr. AO of NIN, Hyderabad went on superannuation on 31087020 and the post fell vacant, ICMR-NIEN, Hyderabad is much a bigger institute by budget, staff strength ete than the [COMR-VCRC Padueherry. As per Role 10 of ICMR Adminismive Cadre (Group A,B,C) Reonaltment Rules, 2017, the applicant was transfered to ICMR-NIN, Hyderabad, as por service rales of ICMR and fone .
= a NS SS wt we the Institution. The applicant is bound by condidons mentioned iy the onder, Hf is submitied that the order of tranfer has been issued with the prior appraval of the comeptent authority. ta the speaking order, it ie further pointed out thet there is no vielation of principles of natural justice, melafides or discrimination, The public interest and administrative exigencies ere far more important than personal convenience of an employee, besides heing an essential condition of service. [tis submitted that there is no rule provision for reversion afler having accepted the promotion and having acted upon. The service of the applicant is tranterable ag per the rules. It is specifically mentioned in the appointment letter of the applivent. His further stated that the avermente of the applicant have been considered on merits in compliance to the directions of the Han'ble Tribunal and the representations dated 03.06.2020 and 10.06.2020 submitted by ihe applicant are hereby rejected and disposed of 4, Leamed Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the 2 Respondent/Asst. Director General (Admin) has passed an order an 16.12.2020 order It is not. The grounds of hardship, family background and pandemic have not even been considered. The issue of reversion has boen hnished aside stating there is no provision. Tia is contrary to law and PLOVBions sre available. There is complete aon-application of mind and it is « clear case of bias and malice.
13. The Leatned counsel for the respondents submit that as ser tems of V8 Oo eo appinbement. the atimivant ig lable to serve in any pan oof the we ~~ eae 2 Se we, t we Therefore, the employer is empowered io Gansiar an enyloves on functional reguirament aad in public interest. Normally, a transfer order can be challenged anly on the ground cf main ide intention ar if the transfer is in vielation of any service rules. In dhe present cave, neither of these bee situations exists, Further, i ig submitied thal the applicant had miscenstrued the provisions ef FR isin), is subniitied that the expreasion "The Presidemt may" used iy PR UNa) indicates that is net mandatary and accordingly it ja nol necessary to arceds to the requcel fy transfer to lower post under FR Lola) invariably, tn other words, competant autharity has discretion { accept of reject such request and in the presen case the Respondent had rightly refectad the aame. [ds submitted that es the isnguaes inthe Rule ie "Moy" and not "Shall®, Farther & is subrited thar for a person to be reverted, the reverted post should be vacant and in the pregent case the Reverted post (Administrative Officer) at Puducherry hed already been filled ap by one Lakshmanan and, ae such, evendf reverted, the aoslcant can ESD ABP be accammuniated only outside Puducherry, fb is submiltied that dramaer io a lower post with protection of pay deran in bleher post entails addidanal financial burden an Public Exchequer and the provision of FR 15(a} could not be invoked in 8 roatine maaner The resnondenta Garther states chat dere ja as x POayeY sacking reversion in the represenfation dated G2.08.2020 and ihe ad already been considered and the applicant had only % representation h
-
highlighted the family ciroumstances which is comunoan to avery individual and admininiratlve exigencies are fur more important then personal convenience of eX £3 Pin 28 SRP oS an employes besides being an easential canditian of service, It is submitted tha the applicant had made an aliernate one line prayer in the representaiton dated 10.06.2020 seeking reversion te the Adminigirative Ollicer poet "If neceasary"
in the same institute. [Cis sulunitted that the post of Administrative Ober is not available ap aame has been Red by amnher Administrative Officer Hence the allegstion of nan appheation of mind among other allegations are denied,
16. Pacts are not in epute. The apolicant has never been tansferred (ror the inception of her career snes 1904 and being in a post of Under Secrstary bevel, she is bound by the AN India Transfer Lishifity and being an essential condition afservice, Nis settled principles of law thet an onder of transier is on incident of Goverment service as has been held by the Hon'ife Apex Court in the ane ofthe Union of India & Ors. 0 SL. Abbas, [1993] 4 SCC 387, wherein it was held that the exscutive instructions regarding trneiers are in the nature of guidelines and they do not have any statutory foros and unless an onder of transfer is vitated by malafides or made in violation of the statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it and the guidelines de net confer USON 8 government anplayee a legally enforosabls right.
ae 17, The Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and of tee vw. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2009] IS SCC 178, is paragraphs [8] to [10], has observed as follows:
3:
& A government Posted at ¢ place af his be posted at one place or the other He is lable to be tensiivred in the administmative exigencies thom one place oe i the ather. Transfer of an employes | inh ee servant hes ao vested right to renisin s Se on SS SN .
if MA TASSURT i & OA SSO ual condition of asrvice in the absence af any specifiy ndication 2 ip the contrary, No Government can Sinedan iP the guvanunent servant insists that onoe appointed ar pasted wi 8 particular place or position, he should contiins Ak uk place ar paeltion ae long as he desires (see - ce AS ay Gobanihan Gal, (00s) EE SCC A027 SOC 9. 8 &. The courts are always reluctant in interfering trater of an cnplovee andes gs such transfer j windation af same stetutary provisions or affers | fides. In Sivipi Base », State of Bihar, 1990] § ge S39 this Court fel: (SCC p. 661, para 9). In our opinion, the courts Should nal Interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and fbr administrative reasons unless the fanafer orders are made in viclatic am at a e mandatory statutory rule ar on the ground of mals de governmint servant holding a transferable post i has ne vested night to remain pasted at one place or the other, hes 3 Hable to be transferred fram one place ta the ather, Theiats orders issued by the competent authoriiy de not vichate of his legal nights. Even if a transfer onder is passe od te violation of executive instructions or ordars, the sourts ordinarily should not interfere with the order inetead afleeted party should approsch the higher authorities in the department. [f the courts continue to interfire with daytc- dey transfer onfers issued by the government and is subordinate authorities, thers will be camplete cheos hy the administration which would not be conducive to publle meres, The High Cour overlooked these interfering with the transfer anders, i me aspects iy s 1G. In NLA. Singh vw. Union of India, [1994] 6 SOC 88 this Court retersted thet: (SCC p. 105, para 6) the snopes of yudicial review in matters of tranafer of a government Servant Io an equivalent post without any adverse caneequance on the service ar osreer pinepects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of male (des and viglation of any specific provision." .
Ro { f the Supreme
18. in this comtexi, i is necessary te refer to the decision os Court in State af LLP « Sive Ruan and another, (S008) 7 SCC -- de puvagranh 1S], 8 waa obearved ag follows:
(stein Nnnninnce teen RECREATES S$ MA TAS S08 fie & OA SB Lae "S. The Bi exercising jurisdiction under ArGoles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question es fe whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, That would easentially osquire factual adjudication and byvariebly depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concemed, No govemiment servant or exaployer af a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever af any one partiouls place or place of his choice since transfer of a partion! employee appointed te the class or category of transts posts from one place tp other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary tac in public interest and efficiensy in the public administration, Unless an antes of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise ar stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such Gansity, the couris or the tribunals norually cannot interfere with each orders as a matter of routing, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their wen decision for that of the employen'managemers, 9s against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concemed. This position was highlighted by this Court iy National Hydroelectric Power Corn. Ltd. vy. Shri Bhapwan, (HRILT 8 SCO S74.
19. Further, the Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in State of dhan Lal, [2004] 1) SCC 400 in parserenh [7] obsewed as follows:
"7. Bis too ete im the day for any government servant to sonfend that once appointed ar posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in euch pleoe or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident Inherent in the terms of appointment bat also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication te the contra, in the lew governing er conditions of service. Unless the arder of transfer is shown to be an outonme of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory prevision fan Act or rule) or passed by an authority | eteat to do so, an ander of ~fransfer cannot Hehdly be interfored with as @ meatier of couse or routine for any ar every type of prievance sought Je be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating -
16 MA TNR Pin & OA SRORG an opportuniiy to the atiicer or servant concerned to approach their "higher athorHios for nedrass but cannot haves the consaguense of depriving or denying the compatent authority to transier a particu! lar officen'servant to any glace am public inferest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as kaig as the official atetas is not aleoted adversely and there is no Inffaction of any career prospects such as xeniorigy, scale of pey and secured emoluments. This Count bas offen reiterated that the order of qansfir tale even fn ieenserees: sio on of administrative guidelines esmnt also be interfered with, as they do not canter any legally enforceable sights, unless, as naticed aupra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or fg made in violation of ary atatatory provision.
y 20, The parameters for conducting judicial review of transfer order came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. HN Rirtonta,
--PPOSST S SC 448. fh oras hedd that unless 9 transfer order ig mals fide, legal or in violation of statutory mules, the High Court should not interfere with the order of transfer. In paragrenk (91, it was held ag Dllows: "S. After hearing leamed counsel for the parties we do not find any valli jostification for the High Court for entertaining @ writ petition aeainst the order of transfer made apainst an employes of the Central Government holding @unslersble post. Further there wes no valid Justification for lesuing inhinotion onder against dis Central "tg Government, The respondent being a Central Government employee held a tranaferable post and he was Hable to be transferred from one place to the other In the country, he has no fegal right to Instet for his posting at Caleatta or at any other place af his choice. We da not approve af the pavalier manner in svhich ths impruened onlere have been issued withoal considering the correct legal position. Transtir of public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the tranafer order Glew sual on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on grev und of mals fides. There was no good ground for interfering oth the respondent's tranefer, SLA USAIN SSIS iitngiiget ise a SSE et cia evinces tiniest ee iF MA T2ENVEQ2T a & OA 38/2020 i. The Supreme Court, subsequently, ip Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1999 Supp [4] SCC 169, has held that 9 transfbe, which (s an incident of service, ig not to be interfered with by Courts unfess it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitlated by mala fides or infraction of any profeesed norm ot principle puverming the tranefiv. In paragraph [10], 2 was observed as fillows: "10. Ibis setded law thet a ransfe which is an incident of service ts not to be interfered with by the courts unless if is shown to be clearly arbiosry or vitteted by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer (See NLR. Singh vo Unien of India, [1904] 6 SCC
98)."
22. in the case of State of Bihar v. Kaushal Kishore Singh and Ors. reported in 19991) PLIR (SC) 5 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"Even if option were called for and given, it is not mandatory for the Government to accept options. of the candidates and make appointment to the post. Asking for option of candidates is essentially s discretionary matter and the Government is not bound to select the candidate on the basis thereol. Under these clreurnstances the candidate who - applied for, though opted for heve ast acquired right, olute right for selection or
23. Considering the materials on recerd and submissions of the leaned counsel for both the parties, it is noticed that the impugned transfer order dated G1-06-2020 issued by ICMR, New Delhi transferring the applicant from VOR, Puducherry to NIN, Hyderabad particularly, is on functional requirement of the administation. The details with regard to the adminiatrative exigencies has been stated by the respondent which justity thelr position to transfer the sta e CRA SRORERG x adnunisiative staff, The need arsas ie the department for ranafer of the eniployee and the same has been well explained by the resporulents, a. "The transfer of the applicant iseusd by the conmetent authority is in fhe infersat af the organization taking Isle account service of several persane fn.
£ diferent stations and need for posting Indivichisis In aivierent stations, which cannot be questioned by the anglivant. In wow of the fact thai thers is ao aunctioned poet at Puducherry, notwihsiasding initially yemotion aoplicant s x f wae scoummodaied at the same stalion as others and continued to atay ander Sh court order, her mevernent owt of Padacherry becomes. inevitable, aa the Se & vaomicy there being at Hyderabad which is groaximate to Poducherry, transfer crder io Fully justified. Dawie: the pandemic, the strengths and capacites af all the ICMR institues were pooled together te pet the best possible owlgis in various areas. 'The relative hardship caused to the employee due to tranafer order cannot he the geonnd for depriving/delaving the competent authority (2 transfer an officer to any glace in the organizational interest, The a respondents in thelr reply has given reasons for posting and considering af agpents it ommet be anid that the order of transfer in amdafide ane and in violation of any nile fi the Thbondl te interfere in dhe eater.
a3. In view af the settled iegal position, the petitioner heving not made oat any ground fer Interfere with the arders of transfer, the QA stands dismissed, No gosts . Pape vaveirses sitteres ee toes SSNS SASSO SIE fewer bee eeebeeeetwaalcnbeure -