P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Sam Joseph Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (24 Jul 2020)

Court cannot step in and substitute the decision of the Corporation in administrative exigencies

MANU/KE/1941/2020

Service

The Petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking to set aside transfer order and to exempt him from rotational transfer on compassionate grounds. The Petitioner is an Officer in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation. He had joined the service of Corporation, as Assistant Manager, in July 2007.

The Petitioner has been served with order, transferring him to Bangalore with immediate effect. The Petitioner immediately submitted representation before the second Respondent and, thereafter, filed writ petition. This Court by judgment directed the second Respondent to consider the representation submitted by the Petitioner with compassion and sympathy that it deserves. Although, the second Respondent considered the representation, the Petitioner's request for cancellation of the transfer has been rejected. Hence, the Petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit P12 and direct the Respondents to exempt the Petitioner from rotational transfer. The sole question that emerges for consideration in present writ petition is whether the transfer and posting of the Petitioner from Ernakulam to Bangalore is justifiable or not.

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been working in Ernakulam for the last four years. He holds a Managerial post in the Corporation. It is also admitted that in the last year, when the Petitioner was promoted and transferred, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation the Corporation reconsidered his transfer and permitted the petitioner to continue at Ernakulam.

The Petitioner has been transferred to Bangalore to handle special trains, to boost the tourism products of the Corporation in the present situation. The Petitioner being a senior employee of the Corporation has the responsibility towards his job assignment as well. The Petitioner was permitted to work in Ernakulam for the year four years. Merely because the Petitioner's son is a special need's child, that is not a ground for the petitioner to perpetually continue in Ernakulam. The Respondents have shown utmost leniency and compassion in favour of the petitioner during his tenure of service. The Petitioner has been transferred to Bangalore to meet the administrative exigencies of the Corporation. It is not for this Court to step in and substitute the wisdom of the Corporation, in its administration. Exhibits P6 and P7 are only guidelines/directives to be broadly followed by the Corporation.

As rightly pointed out by the Respondents, there are better educational and medical facilities at Bangalore, where the Petitioner can admit his son. If not, it is for the Petitioner to make alternative arrangements rather than resisting the transfer, on the ground of the illness of his son. True, sympathies are there with the Petitioner, but that cannot override administrative exigencies, particularly when he holds a senior managerial post.

The Petitioner does not have a case that, there is any malice or statutory infraction in the order of transfer. Moreover, he has enjoyed the benefit of promotion also. The Respondents have, as directed by this Court, considered the representation of the Petitioner and felt that, the Petitioner has to join the Corporation office at Bangalore, for the better interest of the Corporation. It is not for this Court to say that the said decision is wrong. There is no scope for judicial review in such administrative matters.

There is no illegality in Exhibit P12 order passed by the third respondent, which is purely an incident of service. Hence, there are no grounds warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Exhibit P12 order and to direct that the Petitioner be exempted from rotational transfer. Writ petition dismissed.

Tags : TRANSFER ORDER   MALICE   PROOF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved