S. D. PANDIT ( 1 ) RULE D. B. Since we have heard the arguments at length, we propose to dispose of this writ petition at this stage Petitioners are employees of a Society named "advancement of People s Action and Rural Technology" (hereinafter to be referred as CAPART) The said Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is under the aegis of Department of Rural Development Government of India under the Ministry of Rural Development. The President of CAPART is an Union Minister whereas the Vice President and the Chairman are Ministers of State. The Director General of the said Society is to be appointed with the prior approval of the Govt. of India and the funds for CAPART are also from grants made by the Centra! Government. The principle object of this CAPART is to encourage and promote voluntary efforts in rural development and in the implementation of the projects for the enhancement of the rural prosperity by injecting the new technological inputs. ( 2 ) OUT of the nine petitioners two are working as Assistant Directors, two as Deputy Directors and three as Research Assistants. They have filed the present petition under Article 226 to challenge the order issued on 22nd November, 1994. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are being transferred to State Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter to be referred as SIRD) and National Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter to be referred as NIRD ). According to petitioners SIRD and NIRD are totally different from CAPART and they are not the branches of CAPART. They contended that they are in service from 1979 and their transfer is not on the ground of administrative reasons or public interest and their transfer is not also with their consent. Therefore, the said transfers are illegal and void ab initio. ( 3 ) THEY further averred that as per the Memorandum of Association of CAPART the executive committee has got powers to constitute regional committees for effective discharge of the functions of CAPART. By a notification dated 16th September, 1994 published in the official Gazette some regional committees have been constituted. Petitioners alleged that this constitution of the regional committees was in violation of Rule 44 of Memorandum of Association of Rules of CAPART. Consequently the formations of the said regional committees is invalid, illegal and they have no legal sanctity. By a notification dated 16th September, 1994 published in the official Gazette some regional committees have been constituted. Petitioners alleged that this constitution of the regional committees was in violation of Rule 44 of Memorandum of Association of Rules of CAPART. Consequently the formations of the said regional committees is invalid, illegal and they have no legal sanctity. Consequently their transfer and posting under the said regional committees is illegal and invalid inter alia also because the administrative control over them with respect to service condition would solely vest with the Directors of SIRD/nird. Their services would be put under the control of subordinate authorities. Those impugned orders of transfer in fact amount to sending them on deputation but as they have never consented for going on deputations, therefore, the said transfer orders are illegal and invalid. ( 4 ) THEY further averred that their transfers are malafide. The committee of Mr K. V. Rao and Mr. C. O. Rajan had acted in discrimination as they had played the role of pick up and choose without following any principle by transferring only employees of Northern, Eastern India and shielding and protecting the employees of South India. Similarly all the Scheduled Caste persons are transferred. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in view of the above contentions petitioners are praying that the said orders of their transfer issued on 22nd November, 1994 be set aside and quashed as illegal and invalid. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners a show cause notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted. In response of the said notice on behalf of all respondents the respondent No. 4 has filed a reply. All the allegations made by the petitioners are controverted and it has been contended that the regional committees are established by virtue of Rule 44 of the Memorandum of Association of CAPART with a view to initiate and carry out the work of CAPART at those six regional centres. One officer of Deputy Director/assistant Director officer and one Research Assistant has been transferred to each of the centre. The claim of the petitioners that they have been transferred/deputed to organisations different to CAPART is totally erroneous and wrong. One officer of Deputy Director/assistant Director officer and one Research Assistant has been transferred to each of the centre. The claim of the petitioners that they have been transferred/deputed to organisations different to CAPART is totally erroneous and wrong. The participation of SIRD and NIRD in the regional committees is taken in order to have administrative support from them to facilitate smooth and early functioning of the Regional Centres of CAPART. The decision to set up Regional Committees had been taken in the interest of quick disposal and better information and a more comprehensive scrutiny. A large number of project proposals for funding - nearly 14,000 - are pending for decision of CAPART and the setting up of Regional Committees is in the larger public interest of the country. The malafides alleged by the petitioners are totally baseless and malicious. There was no committee for suggesting or proposing transfer. There is no favouritism to South Indians. Out of total employees of 153 only 11 are South Indians. Out of those 11 South Indians 9 are in the category of Managers, Chief Accounts Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Private Secretary, Personal Assistant, peons and technicians and none of the employees transferred is any of those categories occupied by those South Indians. There are in all 31 Research Assistant in CAPART. Out of which only 1 is South Indian. There are in all 32 Scheduled Casts/scheduled Tribes employees working in CAPART and out of them only 3 have been transferred. The above facts show that a case of malafide as alleged by the petitioners is wrong. Thus they prayed that the petitioners petition be dismissed with costs as the present petition is frivolous litigation and impending the public interest. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner is heard at length. She has taken us through Rules of CAPART and all other documents as relied. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate her contention as well as the allegations made in the petition, it is necessary to see the provisions of Rule. The said Rule 44 is running as under: 44. She has taken us through Rules of CAPART and all other documents as relied. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate her contention as well as the allegations made in the petition, it is necessary to see the provisions of Rule. The said Rule 44 is running as under: 44. (A) "the Executive Committee, as necessary, may constitute Regional Committee for the effective discharge of the functions of the Society; (b) The geographic coverage of the Regional Committee and their membership and functions may be determined by the Executive Committee as and when such Committees are proposed to be constituted provided that the Director General or his nominee shall be the Chairman of any or all such Regional Committees that may be constituted. "if the above provisions of Rule are considered then it would be quite clear that the Executive Committee can constitute Regional Committee and can also determine the geographic coverage of the Regional Committee and its membership. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 44 clearly lays down that the Chairman of the Regional Committee should be either the Director General himself or his nominee. If the notification issued by the CAPART produced by the petitioners as Annexure b is seen then it would be quite clear that the Executive Committee of CAPART has constituted the said Regional Committees as per the power vested in it by Rule 44 (a) of the Memorandum of CAPART. Rule 44 (b) further mentions that this Regional Committee must be having a Chairman and Director General of CAPART himself or his nominee as the Chairman of the Regional Committee. Director General had participated in the Executive Committee Meeting in which the decision of forming Regional Committees was taken and Chairmen of Regional Committees were nominated in that meeting (See Annexure II filed with Additional Affidavit filed on 12th January,1995 ). After the decision of the Executive Committee to form the Regional Committees a proposal was sent by the Director General CAPART to the Secretary and the Ministry of Rural Development has accepted the said proposal. Therefore, from the material on record it is quite clear that the formation of the Regional Committee is quite legal and valid. The Chairman of the Regional Committee is a nominee of the Director General. Besides Director General personally becoming the Chairman of every Regional Committee is not practical and feasible. Therefore he has become a member of every Committee. Therefore, from the material on record it is quite clear that the formation of the Regional Committee is quite legal and valid. The Chairman of the Regional Committee is a nominee of the Director General. Besides Director General personally becoming the Chairman of every Regional Committee is not practical and feasible. Therefore he has become a member of every Committee. If the Rule 44 (a) of Memorandum of CAPART is seen then it would be quite clear that the Regional Committees are established for effective discharge of functions of CAPART. Thus the Regional Committees are the part and parcel of CAPART and they could not be said to be different or distinct entities. ( 9 ) IF the appointment letters of the petitioners produced on record are seen then it would be quite clear that in their appointment letters itself it has been clearly mentioned that each of them could be posted in any part of the country either on any existing PADI project or initiating altogether a new project. Therefore, in view of the said terms of their appointment it has been fairly accepted at the time of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are liable to be transferred. Thus the order of transfer of the petitioners could not be said to be illegal or invalid. ( 10 ) INDEED first para of order dated 22nd November, 1994 shows that wording used in the transfer order in question is not happy . The said order dated 22nd November, 1994 runs as under:- "consequent on setting up of Regional Committees of CAPART vide this Council s Notification No 12-10/94-Admn. published in the extraordinary Gazette of Govt. of India on 23. 9. 1994 (Copy enclosed), the Competent Authority has ordered placement of services of the following officers/staff at the disposal of the concerned State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD)/national Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) in connection with the work of the Regional Committees. published in the extraordinary Gazette of Govt. of India on 23. 9. 1994 (Copy enclosed), the Competent Authority has ordered placement of services of the following officers/staff at the disposal of the concerned State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD)/national Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) in connection with the work of the Regional Committees. No doubt the above wording of the said order was not happy and it was not specifically mentioned that there was no deputation of the petitioners but the sub para No. 1 of the said order will have to be read alongwith para 2 which runs as under: "the placement of the services of the above officers would amount to transferring of the Headquarters of the post from Delhi to the respective Regional Centres. The above officials will continue to be under the control of this council except in routine administrative matters like sanctioning of casual leave etc. for which they will function under the administrative control of the concerned Member-Convenor of the Regional Committee. The above para No. 2 of the said order was making quite clear that the petitioners and three other persons were only transferred and for only routine day to day administrative purpose they were to function under the administrative control of concerned Member-Convenor of the Regional Committee. But they will continue to be under control of CAPART. They shall be bound by disciplinary process, administrative control and salary and responsibilities only with CAPART. When they were to work away from the head quarter and in the Regional Committees, it is but natural that their day to day functioning and administrative control could not be controlled by CAPART in Delhi and consequently it was necessary to delegate the powers to the Member/convenor of the Regional Committee. Thus if the Para No. 1 and Para No. 2 of the said transfer order are read together then the claim of the petitioners that they were being sent on deputation and were not being transferred could not be accepted But now apart from this the respondent CAPART has made the position clear by issuing a further office order under the signatures of Director General on 11th January, 1995 which runs as under:- "in continuation of this Council s Officer order of even number dated 22nd November, 1994, it is clarified that the Office Order dated 22. 11. 11. 1994 is simply a transfer order and that the transferred employees shall be under the control of this Council. Only logistic support is being drawn from SIRDs/ NIRD and only Headquarters of Regional Committees will be located there. All conditions of service of the employees shall be governed by CAPART Service Rules. " ( 11 ) THE above second order makes the position quite clear. The petitioners are merely transferred and their service will continue to be governed by CAPART Service Rules and Regulations Copy of the said order is also distributed to all concerned staff i. e the petitioners. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in view of the above discussion it would be quite clear that the allegations made by the petitioners that they are transferred to another department or that they are deputed to another department are false. ( 13 ) THE petitioners have averred in the petition in para nos. 16 and 17 as under: "16. That the malafide in transfer is apparent from the fact, which the petitioners have come to know from reliable source, that for picking up employees for transfer a committee of two persons/officers of the CAPART, namely, Shri K. V. Rao, Chief Accounts Officers and Mr. C. O. Rajan, Chief Administrative Officer was formed. This Committee or officers played discriminatory roles in pick and choose of the employees for transfer. The transfer applies, curiously enough for only Northern and Eastern India unjustifiably and capiciously shielding/ projecting transfer to Sough Indian. No South Indian employee has been touched. 17. That the malafide is further apparent that all the Scheduled Caste officers have been chosen and transferred when general category Deputy Director have not been touched only two S. C. Assistant Directors have been transferred. This smacks the order being punitive in nature. Hence the order of transfer is unsustainable. " ( 14 ) THE respondents have categorically denied the allegations made in the above para. There is absolutely nothing to show that there was any committee of two persons as claimed by the petitioners in the above paras It is quite obvious that the allegations are purposely made in order to win the sympathy of the court. Then from the replies in paras 16 and 17 of the respondent it would be quite clear that the allegations of regional discrimination made by the petitioner is also false. Then from the replies in paras 16 and 17 of the respondent it would be quite clear that the allegations of regional discrimination made by the petitioner is also false. Out of the total 31 Research Assistants there is only one South Indian. Consequently it could not be said that there is purposeful discrimination. It is not also mentioned in the petition or in the rejoinder as to how it is a case of discrimination. A mere vague allegation could not be accepted unless circumstances are either mentioned or could be spelled out from the material produced alongwith the petition. Such allegations could not be accepted. It seems that as the respondent No. 4 is South Indian these purposeful allegations are made in order to win over the sympathy of the court. ( 15 ) THEN out of the 12 transferees only 3 are belonging to Scheduled Castes. The claim made by the petitioner that all the transferees are Scheduled Castes is false, to the knowledge of the petitioners. Out of three transferees only 2 have joined the present petition as petitioners. If the total numbers of transferees is taken into consideration then it would be quite clear that there is transfer of the Scheduled Caste persons to the extent of only 25%. Therefore, it could not be said that there is purposeful harrassment to the Scheduled Caste persons particularly when one of the members of the Scheduled Caste who is transferred does not support the claim of the petitioners. ( 16 ) THE transfers in question are for the administration purpose as CAPART has created Regional Committees. The Chairman of the Regional Committee is the nominee of CAPART. These transfers are for the purpose of the proper functioning of the Regional Committees. The transfers had been made on account of administrative contingencies. The transfers in question are definitely in the public interest. The allegations made regarding the malafides are baseless, frivolous and false to the knowledge of the petitioners. This present petition is devoid of any merits. These transfers are for the purpose of the proper functioning of the Regional Committees. The transfers had been made on account of administrative contingencies. The transfers in question are definitely in the public interest. The allegations made regarding the malafides are baseless, frivolous and false to the knowledge of the petitioners. This present petition is devoid of any merits. In view of the false and frivilous allegations made by the petitioner by alleging discrimination on the regional basis as well as caste basis and insisting on the same in the rejoinder, we feel that it would not be proper to dismiss the petition without directing the petitioners to pay the cost to the respondents Petitioners have made those false allegations and tried to mislead the Court and obtained orders that they are not relieved to join their posting, as per the transfer orders though they were aware that their services are transferrable. Even after their wrong apprehensions were made clear by producing the annexures I and II by respondents with additional affidavit the petitioners unturned to stick to their allegations in the petition. Hence we hold that they must be saddled with costs. The petitioners to pay Rs 4,500. 00 as costs to the respondents. ( 17 ) THIS petition is thus dismissed with costs. Application for grant of injunction is also dismissed and in terms order is vacated forthwith.