Director General and Another vs Daxa Vaghela

R.M. Doshit, J.—ADMIT. Mr. Trivedi appears for and waives service of notice of admission for the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is heard and decided today.

This Appeal preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9655 of 2008.

The respondent No. 1 is employed by the appellant - National Institute of Fashion Technology (hereinafter referred to as ''the NIFT'') as Research Assistant. Her appointment is made on an express condition that her ''services can be transferred to any other centre based on administrative exigency.'' By order dated 21st July, 2008, the respondent has been transferred to Kunnur centre of the NIFT.

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 preferred above Special Civil Application No. 9655 of 2008. According to the respondent No. 1, her transfer was punitive in as much as she had committed certain lapses in issuing invitation cards for fashion show organized two months ago. Allegation of mala fide made by the respondent No. 1 was denied by the NIFT. According to the NIFT, the NIFT has started a new centre at Kunnur. The manpower required for the Kunnur centre has been provided by transfer of various employees from various centres of the NIFT all over the country, the respondent No. 1 being one of them.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has observed that ''one cannot overlook the hard realities of life and has to read between the lines. There may not be anything expressly stated and no files are shown and the decision could be taken for the very purpose though it might ostensibly appear to be an administrative order, but, in fact, its basis or foundation could be the incident of not maintaining and observing the protocol while preparing and distributing the invitation cards.''

On perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the allegation of mala fide made by the respondent No. 1 is vague and based on apprehension and not on definite materials. There was no reason for the learned Single Judge to read between the lines and come to a conclusion that the impugned order of transfer was punitive. It is indisputable that the services of the respondent No. 1 is transferable. The learned Single Judge ought not to have exercised the power of judicial review to interfere with the administrative order of transfer.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 1st September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Application No. 9655 of 2008 is rejected. Civil Application stands disposed of.

This order shall not preclude the respondent No. 1 from making representation against the order of transfer to the competent authority. If such representation is made, the competent authority will consider the same. The decision of the competent authority will be final and binding to the respondent No. 1.