Kirodi Mal Meena vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 20/11/2018 (Annex.P/8), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred and posted in the office of Zonal Chief Engineer (Barmer Zone), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Barmer.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was transferred from Barmer to Churu by order dated 5/10/2018 pursuant to the policy of the respondent Corporation, wherein, within two years of impending date of retirement, a person may seek transfer to a place of his choice. The petitioner was relieved on 5/10/2018 itself and joined the office at Churu on 12/10/2018, approval was granted by the District Election Officer (Collector), Churu permitting the petitioner to join on account of Model Code of Conduct being in force.

A complaint was made by Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore, a Minister in the State Government against the petitioner, pursuant thereto the impugned order dated 20/11/2018 (Annex.P/8) was passed again transferring back the petitioner from Churu to Barmer.

It is inter alia alleged that action of the respondents in passing the order dated 20/11/2018 is ex-facie incorrect as they have simply followed the direction of Joint Chief Election Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur without applying their own mind to the facts of the case and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions have also been made that the Joint Chief Election Officer had no jurisdiction to order transfer of the petitioner and, therefore, also the said order is bad.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that by communication Annex.R/2 dated 19/11/2018, the Joint Chief Election Officer, based on the report submitted by the Executive Engineer of the respondent Nigam that the post of Establishment Officer at Churu was not sanctioned and was only sanctioned at the office of Divisional Chief Engineer, directed immediate transfer of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was transferred back to Barmer. It was denied that there was non-application of mind and/or the respondents merely followed the dictates of Joint Chief Election Officer. It was submitted that admittedly the post of Establishment Officer is not sanctioned at Churu and as the petitioner holds the post of Establishment Officer, he was rightly transferred back.

The petitioner by way of subsequent pleadings questioned the plea raised by the respondents regarding non-availability of post of Establishment Officer. It was claimed that even at Barmer the petitioner was working against the post of Section Officer, which fact is established from Annex.P/9 and that he was transferred to Churu also against the post of Section Officer and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is baseless.

The respondents again joined the issue on the said aspect by placing on record documents questioning the veracity of document Annex.P/9 and indicating that the post of Establishment Officer is indeed sanctioned at Barmer, wherein, the petitioner was working and from there he was wrongly transferred to Churu.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A bare perusal of the order dated 20/11/2018 (Annex.P/8) indicates that the said order only indicated that the petitioner was being transferred back to Barmer as per the directions of Joint Chief Election Officer, Rajasthan, however, from the material which has come on record, it is apparent that on a complaint made against the petitioner's posting at Churu, the Executive Engineer of the respondent Nigam conceded to the complaint that no post of Establishment Officer was sanctioned at Churu, based on which the Joint Chief Election Officer, Rajasthan directed that the petitioner be posted at a place where there is a sanctioned post of Establishment Officer and pursuant thereto, the order dated 20/11/2018 has been issued.

From the material which has come on record, it is firmly established that the post of Establishment Officer, on which the petitioner was promoted by order dated 21/7/2017 (Annex.R/6), which is a post of officer grade, is not available at Churu. The claim made by the petitioner that he was posted at Churu against the post of Section Officer, which is the post of ministerial staff, even if accepted to be correct, the petitioner cannot by way of present writ petition seek to enforce any legal right to work against the post of lower grade despite receiving emoluments of a higher post. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has now been posted as Establishment Officer at Barmer, where the post of Establishment Officer is available/sanctioned.

So far as the plea raised regarding the authority of Joint Chief Election Officer to issue directions in this regard is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioner, an Establishment Officer, was posted at Churu, where no such post was available/sanctioned and the said aspect has been rectified even if at the instance of Joint Chief Election Officer, the said aspect pertaining to the authority of Joint Chief Election Officer goes in oblivion and does not require determination by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, as the petitioner cannot claim any right to work on a lower post of Section Officer despite holding the post of Establishment Officer, the action of the respondents in posting back the petitioner at Barmer cannot be faulted.

There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.