Ankit Demta vs Union Of India & Ors.

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

Rarely we come across an employee, with the extent of indiscipline and lacking any constraint on his part, like the applicant herein. What is shocking is that he took the administration for a ride and felt as though he is master of the entire establishment.

The applicant was selected and appointed as Junior Statistical Officer in the year 2017 and was posted in an office at Shilong. Ever since he joined, he was making representations for his transfer stating that his father died. Ultimately, an order of general transfer was passed on 13.11.2020. The applicant was transferred to an establishment in Delhi. That was the place, to which he wanted to be transferred.

The applicant filed this OA challenging the order of transfer by raising the grounds. He contends that though he has furnished eight establishments of his choice at Delhi for being posted, the respondents have posted him in an altogether different organization. He made an extensive reference to various developments that are said to have taken place ever since he joined and named several officers.

Today we Heard Mr. Varcheswar Singh for Ms. Sandhya Gupta and associates, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.L. Wanchoo, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant joined the service in the year 2017 and ever since then, he went on making representations for his transfer. Obviously, being guided by their own policy, the respondents did not transfer the applicant according to his request. He became due for transfer in the year 2021 and accordingly, his name was included in the order, passed on 13.11.2020, transferring as many as 310 officers. The applicant was transferred to Delhi and posted in Delhi Informatics and Innovation Division(DIID).

It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever the issue pertaining to transfer is raised, it is with reference to the place, and nothing more. The applicant does not have any grievance about his being posted in Delhi. The gist of his contention is that he should have been posted in an organization like Niti Ayog, named by him in his option. Here again, we may note that whenever the employee is given the option to choose, it is with reference to the place. Cleverly enough, the applicant furnished the list of eight offices, all of which are in Delhi. More and more he insisted on being posted in a particular seat or office, the respondents are bound to take the request with a pinch of salt. The transfers are place specific and not the establishment, or seat specific.

What is more shocking is the way the OA was drafted. Expressions like “bogus” with reference to the order of transfer, were used. Officers are named making baseless and ruthless allegations. Such things are totally uncalled for. We hope that the firm will make corrections in this behalf lest it cuts into the very reputation of the legal profession.

The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.