Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1834 (PNJ)

Ramesh Singh Ahlawat v. State Of Haryana

2008-11-03

ANGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. The petitioner was transferred to Govt. College Karnal as Lecturer in Economics on 20.07.2006. Major Suresh Chander, Associate NCC Officer (ANO) of NCC Army Unit at Govt. College, Kama, relinquished the NCC charge on 30.04.2007. The charge of the NCC Army Unit at Govt College Karnal was handed over to the petitioner as a Caretaker NCC Officer. On his selection out of the total staff of the College on 01.05.2007, his case for appointment as Associate NCC Officer (ANO) and Caretaker NCC Officer was forwarded by the Principal of the College to the Commanding Officer 7 Haryana BN NCC Karnal vide letter dated 28.05.2007. Interview of the petitioner was taken by the Group Commander NCC, Ambala Cantt on 16.07.2007 for appointment of Care Taker and selection of Associate NCC Officer. In the meanwhile, Parveen Kaushik respondent No. 5, Lecturer in Geography, joined Govt. College, Karnal vide order dated 05.10.2007. The petitioner continued to perform the functions of Care Taker NCC Officer. 2. The Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 13. 12.2007, directed the Principal, Govt. College, Karnal to give charge of NCC Wing with immediate effectto Sh. Parveen Kaushik, Lecturer in Geography (Trained ANO) and charge report be sent to Directorate immediately. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the passing of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, wherein he has challenged the order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 05.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt, of Haryana, Education Department, Chandigarh vide which respondent No. 5 was transferred from Govt. College Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the transfer order of respondent No. 5 is not valid and further the order vide which a direction has been issued to the Principal to hand over the charge of NCC to respondent No. 5 is also contrary to the NCC Rules, 1948. 5. Notice in the said writ petition was issued to the respondents. 5. Notice in the said writ petition was issued to the respondents. Written statement has been filed by the respondents, wherein the respondents have stated that transfer is a matter of administrative discretion and it is not a punishment rather it is a condition of service and as such the employee is bound to work at his place of posting and has no choice to work at any particular place. It is the submission of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Caretaker at Govt. College, Karnal because at that time there was no trained Associate NCC Officer posted there. The petitioner is not a trained Associate NCC Officer and, therefore, could not be appointed on regular basis. Respondent No. 5-Parveen Kaushik is a trained Associate NCC Officer. On the transfer of respondent No. 5 from the Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal, he joined as Lecturer in Geography on 08.10.2007. Respondent No. 5 being a trained Associate NCC Officer was working at Govt. College, Gharaunda as Incharge of the NCC Unit of that College. The petitioner being ineligible could not be appointed as Incharge of NCC Unit in the College. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner, who had appeared for the selection as Associate NCC Officer before the Selection Board held on 28.11.2007 by the Ministry of Defence, Govt, of India, has not been selected. A communication dated 16.05.2008 referred to the NCC Directorate, PHHP & C. Chandigarh has been placed on record of the case to submit that the petitioner is still not qualified to be appointed as Incharge of NCC. In view of this, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misplaced and no interference is called for as the petition is devoid of any merit and, therefore, deserves to he dismissed. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rules 23, 24 and 28 of the NCC Rules have been violated while handing over the charge to respondent No. 5. It has been contended that the respondent No. 5 has been wrongly transferred from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rules 23, 24 and 28 of the NCC Rules have been violated while handing over the charge to respondent No. 5. It has been contended that the respondent No. 5 has been wrongly transferred from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal as under the NCC Rules, the transfer has to be done by the Ministry of Defence, Govt, of India. In the case of respondent No. 5, the transfer has been made by the State of Haryana and, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefits under the NCC Rules, specially when the said transfer.from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal has been made on the basis of his request, as is apparent from the transfer order (Annexure P-5), wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner will not be entitled to any T.A./D.A. and joining time. However, it has not been disputed that the petitioner had appeared before the Selection Board held for selection of Associate NCC Officers on 28.11.2007 and has not been selected by the Board. The communication dated 16.05.2008 has also been accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that although the petitioner may not be eligible for appointment as Associate NCC Officer but respondent No. 5 also cannot be appointed as NCC Officer in the College in the light of Rules 23,24 and 28 of the NCC Rules, 1948. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioner has no right to hold the post on which he is not eligible to be appointed. It is submitted that the transfer of respondent No. 5, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, was a purely administrative transfer as a Lecturer and not transfer as an officer of the Senior Division of the National Cadet Corps Since the transfer was not under the NCC Rules, 1948, the reliance of the petitioner on Rules 23, 24 and 28 of the NCC Rules, 1948 is totally misplaced and are not applicable. As far as the transfer of respondent No. 5 from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal is concerned, the order of transfer of respondent No. 5 is, therefore, valid. As far as the transfer of respondent No. 5 from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal is concerned, the order of transfer of respondent No. 5 is, therefore, valid. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the handing over of charge to respondent No. 5 vide order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-13), it is the submission of the respondents that since the petitioner was not qualified to hold the charge of NCC Wing, he has no right to the said post and further Sh. Parveen Kaushik-respondent No. 5 is a selected Associate NCC Officer and is fully qualified for appointment. 8. It is not in dispute that the transfer order of respondent No. 5 {Annexure P75) from Govt. College, Gharaunda to Govt. College, Karnal is a transfer order as a Lecturer from one College to another, which has nothing to do with the NCC Rules, 1948. Therefore, the reliance of the petitioner on the NCC Rules as regards the transfer of the officer of the Senior Division of the National Cadet Corps is totally misplaced and are not applicable to the case of the transfer of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, transfer of respondent No. 5 is held to be valid. Since the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Incharge of NCC at Govt. College, Karnal is concerned and the order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-13) handing over the charge of NCC to respondent No. 5 is concerned, it requires to be stated here that respondent No. 5 is fully qualified to be given the charge of NCC Wing, whereas the petitioner is not qualified to hold the said post, specially in the light of the fact that the petitioner participated in the selection of Associate NCC Officers on 28.11.2007 before the Selection Board and was not selected as Associate NCC Officer. On his failing to be selected, the petitioner has no right over and above respondent No. 5 for either consideration or appointment as NCC Incharge. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and dismiss the same.