Rajni Malhotra vs Chief Secretary And Ors

Heard Shri M.C. Dhingra, counsel for the Review Applicant and Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

The Review Applicant was working in the office of the Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil Defence. However, in the year 2010, this was split-up into two separate Organizations, namely, Directorate General of Home Guards and Directorate General of Civil Defence, and the applicant was assigned the Directorate General of Home Guards. In the year 2012, the applicant requested for her transfer/posting to Directorate General of Civil Defence against the post of DSO/Company Commander/Senior Instructor. The applicant filed earlier OA bearing no 1105/2013 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.03.1014 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and to pass speaking order. The respondents had passed the speaking order dated 19.06.2014. By the impugned order dated 24.08.2016, another order passed by the respondents dated 19.06.2015 was considered. After hearing both the parties, this Tribunal recorded that the above prayer of the applicant for transferring her to Civil Defence Organisation was rejected on the ground that the above said two Directorates are separate Organizations and the Directorate of Home Guards has no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner/applicant to the Civil Defence Directorate.

The counsel for the Review Applicant vehemently contended that one Rahul Sudan whose case has been considered and he was transferred to Directorate of Civil Defence, whereas the case of the review petitioner/applicant was not considered. As such, the said impugned order dated 24.08.2016 requires to be reviewed.

The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently contended that in view of the peculiar facts in the case of Rahul Sudan his case was considered as a case of promotion and hence his case is entirely different from the case of review petitioner/applicant. She further submitted that as the said promotion-cum-transfer of said Rahul Sudan was not a new fact came into existence after the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 was passed, as such it should not be treated a ground for allowing the Review Application.

The above said contentions of the respondents are stated in para 3 and 4 of their preliminary submissions, which are extracted below:-

"3. Sh.Rahul Sudan, who had joined as JSO (CD) on his selection by UPSC in the year 2004, became eligible for promotion to post of Commandant (CTI) or SSO (CD) in year 2012. He represented to the department to either be promoted to the post of Commandant in Directorate General of Home Guards or be transferred to Directorate of Civil Defence against vacant post of SSO (CD).

It being a peculiar case and taking into consideration that the officer Sh. Rahul Sudan is not denied his due promotional avenue, a conscious decision was taken by the Home Department, on recommendation of Directorate General of Home Guards (R/RA-9) in consultation with services department of GNCT of Delhi, to transfer him to Directorate of Civil Defence (R/RA-10). Whereas, no such extraordinary circumstances existed in the case of Smt. Rajni Malhotra. Therefore, both the cases are entirely different and cannot be equated."

In view of the contentions of the counsel for the respondents, there is no good ground to review the impugned order. Accordingly, Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.