Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 456 (ORI)

Kartikeswar Sahoo v. Food Corporation of India

2003-07-14

P.K.MISRA, P.K.MOHANTY

body2003
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner assails the order of transfer vide office Order Part-I No. 76/2002, a copy of which is Annexure-1, transferring him from Cuttack to Titilagarh. 2. The petitioner’s case in short is that, he is at present continuing as a confirmed Assistant Manager (Q.C.) under the Food Corporation of India under Cuttack district. Earlier to his posting at Cuttack in December, 2000, he was at Ranchi in the state of Bihar. He is a diabetic patient and he is under treatment at Cuttack and is with diet restriction. He has lost his father and mother in the year 2001 and his children are prosecuting their studies at Cuttack. The petitioner alleges that he was twice posted at Titilagarh and there are several other persons at Cuttack and Bhubaneswar stations, who have never been posted at Titilagarh which is treated as a difficult station under Orissa region. The opp.parties with mala fide intention and by adopting pick and choose method, have transferred the peti¬tioner to Titilagarh. He submitted representations dated 27.6.2002 and 20.9.2002 as per the scheme for Redressal of Staff Grievances which has yielded no result. 3. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is to complete minimum three years in a station in accordance with Transfer Policy Circular of the Food Corporation of India (in short the “F.C.I.”), but in violation of the Transfer policy while he has not completed even two years of service at Cuttack, he has been shifted by way of transfer and thus, the order of transfer is illegal and liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P. (C) No. 4215 of 2002 challenging this order of transfer, but this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction that a copy of the order along with a copy of the writ petition will be filed before the Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I. Bhuba¬neswar who will consider the representations of the petitioner in Annexures 2 and 3 and pass orders thereon as early as possible, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the papers and till the representations are disposed of by the Senior Regional Manager, the petitioner will continue at his posting at Cuttack. The allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of the order of the Court he has not been paid his salary and allowances for the duty period and his representation was rejected illegally on the ground that the District Office, Titi¬lagarh is one of the heavy procurement centers and there is acute shortage of Quality Control Officer and staff, hence deployment of efficient officer is absolutely necessary in exigencies of service. He was relieved on 5.10.2002 afternoon with a direction to report at District Office, Titilagarh immediately. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the authorities have rejected the representa¬tion since they were bent upon the relieve the petitioner rather than to consider his genuine grievances. In the F.C.I. Rules, Regulations and Quality Control Working Manual, all the Assistant Managers (Q.C.) appointed by the Corporation ought to be experi¬enced with other requisite qualifications and, therefore, the authorities cannot pick and choose person in the guise of exigen¬cies of services. It is, therefore contended that the order of transfer being contrary to the guidelines formulated by the F.C.I. at the highest level of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Regional Manager could not have passed the order of transfer contrary to the guidelines. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties taking a specific stand that the district of Titilagarh in Orissa region of the Food Corporation of India is one of the heavy procurement districts. Adequate number of Quality Control Officers and staff are necessary for checking the quality of the food-grains procured and stored by the Corporation. Due to short¬age of Quality Control Officers and staff the entire procurement process is adversely affected. In such view of the matter, the petitioner being an experienced officer in the rank of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, his services were felt necessary at Titilagarh District Office for which he was transferred to Titi¬lagarh from Cuttack and for no other reason as alleged. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s transfer was in exigencies of service. 5. In support of his contention that the transfer effected in infraction of the policy decision or the guidelines is illegal and void, Mr. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s transfer was in exigencies of service. 5. In support of his contention that the transfer effected in infraction of the policy decision or the guidelines is illegal and void, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in P.V.S. Murty v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar and others; 1991 (II) O.L.R. 348; Union of India v. K.P. Joseph and others AIR 1973 Supreme Court 303; Asu Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1983(3) SLR 783 and Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others; 1999 (3) S.C.C. 422 and it is contended that the transferring authorities are to scrupulously follow the guidelines while effecting transfer, failure of which vitiates the order. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel are not applicable to the fact of the present case and are made in a different context. Nowhere it has been laid down that the guidelines or circulars in connection with transfers are enforceable in law by an aggrieved employee nor does it lay down that the transfer effected without strictly following the guide¬lines in the exigencies of service or in the public interest are bad in law and liable to be quashed. The scope of interference by the High Court in an administrative order of transfer is limited. 6. It is the settled position of law that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the trans¬fers are made in violation of any mandatory provision of law or on the ground of mala fide. An officer holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. The transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if the transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order. The transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if the transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order. It is true that the orders of transfer sometimes cast a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the set up of the concerned employee, but on that score, an order of transfer is not liable to be struck down, unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the Rules, circulars and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification. 7. The Apex Court in Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, 1993(2) SLR 585(SC) have laid down that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the same, even though while ordering the transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. It is laid down that the guidelines of the policy decision does not confer on an employee of any legally enforceable right. The petitioner has himself relied on the Circular No. 23 of 1987 dated 14.4.1987, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9. In paragraph 3 thereof, it stipulates that category 2 and 3 officers are not to be retained in the same post/centre for more than three years. The contention of the learned counsel that the transfer of the petitioner before completion of three years violates the guidelines, cannot be accepted, since the guidelines prescribes an outer limit for which an employees should be allowed to be retained and not a minimum period of three years, as con¬tended. 8. It is the specific stand of the opposite parties that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on the ground that he is an experienced officer of Quality Control and Titilagarh being a heavy procurement district and there is acute shortage of quality control officers and staffs, it is necessary for checking the quality of food-grains procured and stored by the Corpora¬tion, deployment of experienced officers like the petitioner was felt necessary in the exigencies of work. The Apex Court in Laxmi Narin Meher v. Union of India and others; AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1347, while considering the transfer in a similar circumstances where there is a need of experienced staff at the respective places were felt necessary by the administration have held that in such circumstances, the transfers being in exigencies of service, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. The transfer of an officer in the exigencies of a service or on administrative grounds or in the public inter¬est are not to be interfered with by the Courts, unless such transfers are made contrary to any legal provisions or on extra¬neous consideration or if it is actuated with mala fides. Nothing has been placed and proved to show that the transfer is really made on extraneous consideration excepting that some other offi¬cers, who are continuing in the station for a period more than the petitioner have not been transferred and that the petitioner has some personal difficulties and has joined in the post only in December, 2000 and not completed three years. That is hardly a reason for interference by a Court. The petitioner’s representa¬tion was considered by the appropriate authorities and in view of the exigencies of work, the authorities felt the petitioner’s services are required at Titilagarh, which is a difficult procure¬ment centre and the petitioner is an experienced officer in the quality control. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere in the impugned order of transfer and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of the submission of Mr. Mohapatra that the petitioner has been continuing on leave and in view of the interim direction of this Court dated 19.12.2002 that the authorities will not insist the petitioner’s joining at Titilagarh during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner’s application, if any, for leave should be considered in its proper perspective and leave due and admissible should be extended to him and he should be paid his entitlements thereon. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.