JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in order dated 08.02.2023 in O.A.No.712 of 2022 where by Order dated 02.05.2022 and CSIR OM No.3-20 (72)/2022 - E1, dated 05.08.2022 issued by the 1st respondent was upheld, quash the same and consequently, direct payment of attendant benefits from the date of impugned Transfer Order.) V. Lakshminarayanan, J. 1. This Writ Petition seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.712 of 2022 dated 08.02.2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the Director General of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), for payment of attendant benefits from the date of impugned order till the date of transfer. 2. The petitioner is presently working as OCC Administrative Officer at CSIR - SERC, Taramani, Chennai. The petitioner had joined the services of the 1st respondent as an Assistant Section Officer (General). He was initially posted to CSIR - NEERI, Nagpur. He served there for four years and one month. He requested for transfer on medical grounds and was transferred to CSIR - NGRI, Hyderabad. Subsequently, he was selected as an Section Officer (General) and posted at CSIR - SERC, Chennai. Thereafter, he was transferred to CSIR – CECRI, Karaikudi. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings in O.A.No.112 of 2007 where under, a direction was given to consider his representation. His representation was positively considered and his transfer was cancelled and he was retained at CSIR - SERC, Chennai. He served there for five years and then was transferred to CSIR/IICT, Hyderabad. He was then sent on transfer to CSIR/CCMB and after completing one year and four months at CSIR – CCMB, he was transferred to CSIR/NGRI. Yet again, he was transferred to CSIR/CIMAP, Hyderabad Centre. He was then transferred to CSIR/CLRI, Chennai from CSIR/IICT, Hyderabad and joined at Chennai on 23.08.2021. He joined in the capacity as the Administrative Officer. From CSIR/CLRI, he was directed to report at CSIR – SERC on 24.09.2021. 3. The applicant had alleged that he had been transferred on account of his complaint against the 2nd respondent Dr.N.Anandavalli. He was then transferred to CSIR/CLRI, Chennai from CSIR/IICT, Hyderabad and joined at Chennai on 23.08.2021. He joined in the capacity as the Administrative Officer. From CSIR/CLRI, he was directed to report at CSIR – SERC on 24.09.2021. 3. The applicant had alleged that he had been transferred on account of his complaint against the 2nd respondent Dr.N.Anandavalli. According to him, he had lodged a complaint stating that she is a corrupt officer and she is indulging in illegal activities. Therefore, she persuaded the Director General (CSIR) to have him transferred from Chennai to Gujarat. After six months, he was transferred to CSIR - CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. This order of transfer was passed on 02.05.2022. Challenging the same, he had filed the present Original Application. 4. The 1st respondent herein filed a reply that the petitioner was transferred to CSIR - CSMCRI in terms of Clause IV (3) of the Transfer and Posting guidelines of CCOs dated 01.01.2019. It was contended that in view of the administrative exigencies and public interest, the petitioner was served with an order of transfer. It was denied that the transfer order was on account of the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent Dr.N.Anandavalli. According to them, since the transfer was based on public interest, it cannot be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. The 2nd respondent Dr.N.Anandavalli filed a counter that allegations were made against her only after the impugned order of transfer was passed and that only in order to invoke the ground of malafide, she was impleaded in a personal capacity. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the Original Application and challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 6. At the outset, it must be taken note of that the vacancies in Chennai had been filled up and the petitioner is yet to report to CSIR - CSMCRI at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. 7. We have heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.G.R.Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for Mr.V.T. Balaji, learned Senior Standing Panel Counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 8. It has to be pointed out that this is a second round of litigation. Originally, the petitioner filed O.A.No.405 of 2022 challenging the order of transfer. 8. It has to be pointed out that this is a second round of litigation. Originally, the petitioner filed O.A.No.405 of 2022 challenging the order of transfer. The prayer in the said Original Application is as follows: “To quash and set aside the impugned transfer order in No.3.4(c)/2022-E.I, dated 02.05.2022 issued by R1 as clearly illegal, malafide, arbitrary and in violation of Transfer and posting guidelines and also clear violation of the applicant''s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the above facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 9. When the matter was taken up for disposal, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had made a representation requesting for cancellation of transfer order dated 02.05.2022 from SERC, Chennai, to CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and the same was pending consideration. He made a request to the Tribunal that the Writ Petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner within a time frame. Accordingly, by an order dated 10.06.2022, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 02.05.2022 and directed maintenance of Status-Quo, in respect of the petitioner, till the disposal of the said representation. The representation came to be rejected on 05.08.2022. Soon thereafter, the petitioner challenged the transfer order, the relieving order and the rejection order in O.A.No.712 of 2022. The Central Administrative Tribunal took note of the submissions of the petitioner as well as the respondents and came to the conclusion that the order of transfer, being one in public interest and having been issued by the Competent Authority, the same need not be interfered with. 10. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend as follows: (1)The petitioner has been transferred thrice within a period of eight months. (2) The transfer is tainted by malafides and at the instance of the 2nd respondent and (3) It is a punitive transfer and therefore requires interference by this Court. 11. 10. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend as follows: (1)The petitioner has been transferred thrice within a period of eight months. (2) The transfer is tainted by malafides and at the instance of the 2nd respondent and (3) It is a punitive transfer and therefore requires interference by this Court. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the following Judgments: (1) Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592] (2) P.Karunakaran v. Union of India and others [2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3858] (3) G.Prasad and Shashi Chandra Bushan v. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways and others in W.P.No.42783 and 42784 of 2016 dated 12.01.2017 (4) Union of India v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others in W.P.No.28904 of 2015 dated 17.01.2018. 12. Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General countered these arguments stating that it is true that the petitioner had been transferred thrice in a period of eight months but it should not be viewed as a case of repeated transfers. He would state that the first transfer from Hyderabad to Chennai was one on promotion and the second transfer from CLRI to SERC was an intra city transfer. The order dated 02.05.2022 was issued as the services of the petitioner was required in the public interest at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. He would add that the petitioner had spent 11 years in Hyderabad and 5 1/2 years in Chennai. He would further state that there were no allegations in the representation made seeking for cancellation of the transfer and no plea was taken in the Original Application that the transfer is punitive in nature. He would further add that the need of the administration of a person to act in a particular post is a decision taken by the administration and it is not judicially reviewable work unless it has been passed by any incompetent Authority or is tainted by malafides. 13. Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supported the contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General and stated that her client did not prefer any complaint against the petitioner on 10.03.2022. According to her, she merely forwarded a report to the Director General, CSIR and it was a routine communication from the Director, CSIR, SERC to the Director General, CSIR, New Delhi. 14. According to her, she merely forwarded a report to the Director General, CSIR and it was a routine communication from the Director, CSIR, SERC to the Director General, CSIR, New Delhi. 14. We carefully perused the Original Application, the counter and the documents filed along with the Writ Petition and the counter affidavit filed in response to the same. 15. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. A perusal of the records goes to show that the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Chennai on promotion. As per CSIR guidelines for transfer and posting of Group - A and B common cadre officers dated 01.01.2019, Chennai and Hyderabad come under the Zone - 4. The said guidelines in IV (5) states that on promotion, a Common Cadre Officer (CCO) will be invariably be transferred out of his/her present situation, unless there is a public interest which has to be recorded by the Transfer and Posting Committee. The latter portion of the clause does not operate here because the petitioner was transferred on 03.08.2021 on promotion and he willingly joined the post at Chennai. Inside the city of Chennai, CSIR has several stations and from the CLRI Station, the petitioner was transferred to SERC. The distance from Adyar to Taramani is less than 3 KM and it cannot be considered as a transfer at all. In any event, the writ petitioner did not have any grievance with respect to this transfer and readily joined the posting at SERC, Taramani. It is true that the petitioner as found in Page 73 of the typedset of papers that the Director General, CSIR, had on a complaint transferred the writ petitioner from CSIR – SERC to CSIR – CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. However, this is not a punitive action. 16. The learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the DGCSIR found that the services of the writ petitioner are essential at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. He would also draw our attention to the IV (3) of the CCO Transfer and Posting Guidelines. According to the said guidelines, to the extent possible, every Group - A, CCO should serve atleast one tenure of three years at a difficult station. The difficult stations are given in Clause No.VII. He would also draw our attention to the IV (3) of the CCO Transfer and Posting Guidelines. According to the said guidelines, to the extent possible, every Group - A, CCO should serve atleast one tenure of three years at a difficult station. The difficult stations are given in Clause No.VII. It is seen from the narration of the facts that for nearly a period of seven years, the petitioner has served only in Zone 4 and that too in Hyderabad and Chennai. Even in these stations, he has only been transferred from one unit to another within the same city. At no point in his career, he served in a difficult station. In fact, the DGCSIR had taken benevolent view in 2007 cancelling his transfer from Chennai to Karaikudi which is considered as a difficult posting. The facts go to show that it is not a case of punitive transfer, but a decision taken by the Competent Authority in public interest due to the administrative exigencies. 17. As pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the transfer is an incident of service and posting the petitioner at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, is by the Competent Authority who has acted in public interest. The learned Additional Solicitor General would emphasise that the Director General of CSIR took his decision and in his wisdom, and felt that the services of the petitioner is essential at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. 18. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner in his Original Application filed in June of 2022 had stated that he is satisfied if the Director General considers his representation. That representation having been rejected, it does not give a cause of action to the writ petitioner to challenge the same, all over again in the present application. We do not find the allegation of malafides appealing enough to interfere with the order. Had the case of malafide been proved, the writ petitioner would not have been satisfied to have his representation disposed of. The Director General has given five conclusions as to why he is not willing to recall the order of transfer. They are as follows: “"D.In view of the foregoing, the following conclusions are arrived at:- (i)Throughout his whole career of about 17.5 years as CCO, Sh.Venkateswarlu Gadde remained posted at Hyderabad and Chennai only. The Director General has given five conclusions as to why he is not willing to recall the order of transfer. They are as follows: “"D.In view of the foregoing, the following conclusions are arrived at:- (i)Throughout his whole career of about 17.5 years as CCO, Sh.Venkateswarlu Gadde remained posted at Hyderabad and Chennai only. (ii) In his representation, Sh.Gadde has stated that he made a complaint against Dr.N.Anandavalli, Director, SERC, on the charges of corruption and illegal activities and alleged that his transfer order has been issued at the behest of the Director, SERC, but he had not raised any such issue/incident in the past. He has levelled the allegations only after his transfer to CSMCRI. (iii) Sh.Venkateswarlu Gadde is holding the post of AO, which is a Common Cadre Officer (CCO) post in CSIR and he has all India transfer liability w.e.f. 11.02.2005 and he is well aware of this fact. Officer holding a transferable post cannot any vested right for his posting at a particular place. (iv) He has been transferred in public interest in terms of Clause IV.3 of TPC Guidelines of CCOs dated 01.01.2019 and against the post lying vacant at CSMCRI. The provision of Para IV.3 of CSIR TPC Guidelines dated 01.01.2019 has an overriding effect on all the other provisions of TPC guidelines. Hence, in view of the administrative exigencies and public interest involved in the transfer, relief under other provisions of the guidelines cannot be claimed as a right. (v) No Council servant has any right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his/her choice, since transfer of an employee appointed to the transferable post is not only an incident, but condition of service, necessary in public interest and to maintain efficiency in the administration. Public interest and administrative exigencies are far more important than personal convenience of an employee.” 19. We have gone through the reasons and do not find any irregularity or illegality the same. We are convinced that the transfer being the incident of service, the petitioner cannot shirk his responsibility of working at a station concomitant with his position. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It has been arrived on the basis of the correct position of Law and on appreciation of facts before it. There is no perversity or illegality in the order. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It has been arrived on the basis of the correct position of Law and on appreciation of facts before it. There is no perversity or illegality in the order. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory or visitorial wherein we are to consider only the decision making process and not a decision itself. However, taking into consideration the vehement arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we have independently applied our minds and reached the same conclusion as the Central Administrative Tribunal. 20. Before parting of the case, we have to add that the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 will not proceed against the writ petitioner departmentally for not having joined his post at CSIR, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. We place this submission on record. 21. It is no doubt true that the Judicial review is permissible and we have interfered with the punitive transfers but for the reasons stated above, we are convinced that it is not a punitive transfer. Therefore, and none of the Judgments cited above by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. This Writ Petition is dismissed. The Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.712 of 2022 is confirmed. The petitioner is granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to report to CSIR, Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. In case, the writ petitioner fails to avail the time granted, it is open to CSIR to proceed against the writ petitioner for not having reported to the place to which he is transferred. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.