Judgment : W.P.M.P.No. 27315 of 2014: This miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the respondents Circular vide No.DPC/15(1)/ESTT-2014, dated 23.07.2014 pending disposal of the main writ petition. 2. WPMP NO.29599 OF 2014:This miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner to suspend the office order vide No.3(3) R/2011 dated 13.08.2014 pending disposal of the main writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the impugned action of the respondents for not including his name in the list of Executives to be considered for the interview for promotion from E7 Grade to E8 Grade. 5. It is contended in the writ petition that though he is eligible for promotion to E8 Grade, he was not called for the interview and sought a direction to the respondents to call him for interview for the post of Executive in E8 Grade. 6. The version of the respondents is that though the petitioner is eligible to be promoted for the post of Executive in E8 Grade, he was not called for the interview as he was not in the zone of consideration. They stated specifically in the counter that the Corporation instead of interviewing all the candidates who have completed two years of service to fill up only four posts, has called 7 candidates who are admittedly senior to the petitioner and who have completed three years of service while the petitioner has not. The petitioner admittedly has put in service of 2 years 9 months and according to the respondents he was not in the zone of consideration. The respondents have specifically stated in their counter that no one equivalent or junior to the petitioner was called for the DPC interview. Incidentally, though Sri C.Sriramulu, Joint G.M. (Mech.), Sri Gopinath Mishra, Joint G.M. (C & IT) and Dr.Jibitesh Rath Joint G.M. (Pers) all seniors to the petitioner were called for the interview and attended the interview but were not promoted to E8 Grade. The version of the respondents is that because an executive has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being called for interview it does not confer any right upon him/petitioner that he must be called for interview. The version of the respondents is that because an executive has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being called for interview it does not confer any right upon him/petitioner that he must be called for interview. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider his past experience in RINL, Visakhapatnam for which the respondents replied that the appointment letter dated 08.02.2011 issued to the petitioner categorically stipulated that his past experience in RINL may be given due weightage for consideration for higher post that may be filled through open selection in NMDC which according to the respondents means invariably it will not be considered in case of internal departmental promotions by DPC. However, the question whether the petitioner ought to have been called for the interview is to be decided in the main writ petition. 7. The version of the petitioner is that keeping in mind that he approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to call him for the interview for the post of Executive in E8 Grade, the respondents with a mala fide intention to harass him, served office order, dated 13.08.2014 relieving him from duties stating that he was transferred by proceedings and directing him to join at the station to which he was transferred. The version of the respondents is that the petitioner was transferred by NMDC by proceedings dated 24.07.2014 to N.I.S.P., Nagarnar, Chattisgarh State, the same was approved by the competent authority which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner is that no transfer proceedings were served on him on 24.07.2014,l but, as he filed the present writ petition, the office order, dated 13.08.2014 was issued to him by creating a pre-dated transfer order, dated 23.07.2014. 9. As to this, the respondents contended that based on the urgent requirement at the site of NISP Nagarnar, whereat the work for establishment of a steel plant is in progress, proposal for transfer of senior officials to/from NISP Nagarnar were approved by the competent authority in July, 2014. The said proposal included the transfer of Sri LN Mathur, Executive Director, from NISP Nagarnar to Head Office, vide Sri Ganesh Viswakarma, Executive Director, from Head Office to NISP Nagarnar. The said proposal included the transfer of Sri LN Mathur, Executive Director, from NISP Nagarnar to Head Office, vide Sri Ganesh Viswakarma, Executive Director, from Head Office to NISP Nagarnar. Similarly, the proposal to transfer the petitioner to NISP Nagarnar was approved by the competent authority on 23.07.2014 for the reason that the petitioner had experience in steel plant at Visakhapatnam and his services are required at the site of steel plant being put up by NMDC at Nagarnar. 10. It is submitted by the respondents that the office order, dated 24.07.2014 was issued transferring the petitioner from Head Office to NISP Nagarnar for better utilization of his services and in the companys interest and the same was handed over to the petitioner in person on 24.07.2014 itself in the presence of AGM (IED) CSR. According to the respondents, as per the requirement of the company, the copies of the said office order were sent on the same day to the Director (Technical), Director (Personnel), Executive Director (NISP), all heads of projects, and all heads of department. It is submitted by the respondents that as per practice in NMDC, transfer orders, promotion orders, relieving orders etc. are issued and not served as claimed by the petitioner. They stated that these orders are unlike charge sheet, show cause notice which are to be necessarily served upon the individual taking receipt/acknowledgement. According to them, the transfer order of Sri LN Mathur, Executive Director and Sri Ganesh Viswakarma, Executive Director, were served in the same manner and they have been relieved and reported at their new place of postings. 11. Nextly, it is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner applied for half pay leave for 15 days from 30.07.2014 to 12.08.2014 on medical ground stating that he is suffering from high B.P. and an attack of bronchial asthma enclosing a medical certificate, he was advised to appear before a medical board at Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on 05.08.2014. Instead of complying with the advice, the petitioner sought clarification as to the rule under which he was required to appear before the medical board. Instead of complying with the advice, the petitioner sought clarification as to the rule under which he was required to appear before the medical board. The same was clarified to him and he was once again requested to appear before the medical board on 07.08.2014 at Apollo Hospitals, but he refused to appear before the medical board on one pretext or the other and continued to write that he was unable to relocate to NISP Nagarnar due to his ill-health. 12. Nextly, it is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner reported for duty on 13.08.2014 after availing leave and he was relieved on 13.08.2014 vide office order, dated 13.08.2014. 13. The respondents denied the allegation that the transfer order was pre-dated deliberately, arbitrarily and prompted by mala fides. According to the respondents, the transfer order was intended for better utilization of the services of the petitioner and in the interest of company and the same was issued after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that NMDC Service Regulations (Governing the Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Pay and Allowances, Discipline, Conduct and Retiring Benefits to the Employees of the Company) stipulate that every employee shall be liable to be transferred to a post at the Head Office or in any project assigned to the company, at the discretion of the management without detriment to his status and emoluments and that the appointment letter dated 19.01.2011 issued to the petitioner stipulates in one of the conditions that he is liable for transfer at any time and the same has been accepted unconditionally by the petitioner before joining the company vide his letter dated 17.02.2011. 14. Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the petitions. 15. The contention of the petitioner is not that as per the regulations of the NMDC, he is not liable for transfer to a place where the company takes up a new project. His grievance is that in fact he was not transferred on 23.07.2014, as he filed the writ petition a relieving order dated 13.08.2014 was served on him creating a pre-dated transfer order. His version is that the transfer order, dated 13.08.2014 was not at all served on him at any time and he was only served with the relieving order. 16. His version is that the transfer order, dated 13.08.2014 was not at all served on him at any time and he was only served with the relieving order. 16. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that the transfer of the petitioner as well as some other executives were made on the same day by the NMDC and t hey have been approved by the competent authority and that the petitioner is falsely alleging that the transfer order was pre-dated. They also contend that the transfer order was personally served on the petitioner in the presence of an executive of the company. 17. The petitioner attributes mala fides to the respondents. But, the contention of the respondents is that the transfer was made having regard to the administrative exigency at Nagarnar, Chattisgarh State where the work in respect of establishment of a new steel plant is in progress. There is no denial to the fact that some other transfers were made on the same day and that the executives who were transferred assumed duties in their respective places of transfer. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is well aware of his transfer as the order of transfer was served on him personally but he is falsely contending that it was created to victimize him keeping in mind that he filed the writ petition against the respondents. 18. To appreciate the contentions of both parties, it would be relevant to refer the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS v. GOBARDHAN LAL ( 2004 (11) SCC 402 ) whereunder the Supreme Court held as follows: Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. 19. In the instant case, the regulations of the respondents company stipulate that every employee/executive of the company is liable to be transferred to a place whereat the company takes up a new project or vice-versa. In the appointment letter issued to the petitioner, the said condition has been brought to his notice and the petitioner by accepting the said condition joined the respondents company. Except the assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavits filed in support of the petitions, no convincing material is brought to the notice of this Court to inspire confidence that the transfer has actually been prompted by mala fides with a view to harass the petitioner for filing the writ petition. Except the assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavits filed in support of the petitions, no convincing material is brought to the notice of this Court to inspire confidence that the transfer has actually been prompted by mala fides with a view to harass the petitioner for filing the writ petition. The respondents placed enough material indicating that the transfer order has been served on the petitioner on 23.07.2014. As per the afore-referred judgment of the Supreme Court, unless there are strong and convincing reasons, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the transfer which is made on administrative grounds. The version of the respondents is that the petitioner has vast experience in the previous organization which is a steel plant and his services are required at the place of his transfer where construction of a new steel plant is in progress by the respondents company. This court is not convinced with the contention urged by the petitioner that he was transferred on the ground that he filed a writ petition against the respondents seeking a direction to them to call him for the interview for the post of Executive in E8 Grade. Hence, I see no reason to suspend the office order, dated 13.08.2014. 20. The respondents stated in para 16 of the counter-affidavit that on the recommendation of the DPC and on approval of the competent authority, 4 executives out of 7 called for DPC interview have already been promoted to the post of General Manager with effect from 31.12.2013 vide order No.DPC/15(1)Estt-2014, dated 31.07.2014. The proceedings pursuant to the respondents Circular vide No.DPC/15(1)/ESTT-2014, dated 23.07.2014 cannot therefore be stayed. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that both the miscellaneous petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous petitions i.e. WPMP Nos.27315 and 29599 of 2014 are dismissed.