Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would justify the order of the Tribunal. He, apart from reiterating the stand taken by the respondents in reply before the Tribunal, would submit that the Tribunal has considered the plea of the petitioner that during mid academic session of his children, he could not have been transferred and for that reason, the Tribunal has deferred the joining of the petitioner till March 31, 2023.

26. That apart, he continues to be the Opposition Hearing Officer in International Registration Division. That apart, he highlighted the fact that the petitioner in every representation has been improving his case as an afterthought.

27. Mr. Singhdev who has produced before us the relevant record of the transfer of the petitioner to Chennai submits because the petitioner is one of the senior most Deputy Registrar in TMR and was looking after TMR Delhi and as Nodal Coordination of GI Registry in his dual role at Delhi due to lack of senior manpower in TMR and GIR, which needs administrative focus through efficient leadership as department has received multiple applications in the last few months and also due to larger pendency in GI Registry, the petitioner was transferred to Chennai.

28. He submits that as per the transfer policy for Group 'A' Officers of the IP Office, the petitioner having completed the minimum tenure of two years, the plea of Mr. Dias that the transfer is in violation of the policy is untenable. In fact, as per policy, in case of exigency, the transfer can be made even before completion of minimum tenure. Mr. Singhdev states, the plea that the minimum tenure is of five years is totally misplaced argument. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the policy.

36. On the plea of Mr. Dias that there is no post of Deputy Registrar at Chennai office, Mr. Singhdev by drawing our attention to page 293 of the paper book submits that the total sanctioned strength of the post of Deputy Registrar of TM and GI at Chennai is two, against which only one Deputy Registrar is working. In other words, post being available, the petitioner has been rightly transferred. Suffice to state, this plea of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Tribunal by stating that "the allegation of nonexistent post of Deputy Director at Chennai office is not sustainable in view of the documentary evidence produced by the counsel for the respondents."