Ramesh Chander Gupta vs State and Others

Sunil Hali, J.—After putting the petitioner as Incharge Superintending Engineer in PHE/Irrigation & Flood Control Department, he was sent

on deputation to the J & K Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA), Jammu, vide Government Order No. 28-PW (Hyd.) of 2009 dt. 4th of

Feb'09. In compliance to the said order, petitioner assumed the charge as Project Manager (U), PIU, ERA, Jammu on 11th of Feb'09.

The grievance of the petitioner is that after putting about less than seven months in the aforementioned Project, he has been transferred/recalled

by his parent department vide order impugned dated 2nd of Sept'09. It is stated that this order has been passed in violation of the decision taken

by the governing body of the J & K ERA which has been reflected in the Circular No. 01-GAD of 2008 dt. 1st of Jan'08, issued by the General

Administration Department, whereby it has been emphasised that pre-mature transfers of the employees sent on deputation to J & K ERA should

not be made. It is stated that in the said guidelines, issued by the Department concerned, it has been mentioned that the deputationists may be

allowed to work upto the project period i.e. December, 2009. It is thus stated that even though, the petitioner has not completed the said project

period, he has been recalled by the parent department without adhering to the norms Laid down in the aforementioned Circular issued on the

subject.

Respondents in their objections have stated that petitioner has been recalled from ERA and posted to LAWDA. It is stated that this is a transfer

simpliciter and does not violate any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. It is stated that the policy relied upon by the petitioner is simply a

guideline having no statutory backing and the respondent authorities are not bound to act upon the same. It is further contended that the order

impugned has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petition admitted.

There is no dispute that transfer is an exigency of service and any policy or guideline framed by the Government is only meant to regulate the

smooth functioning of the department concerned and it does not confer any right upon the employee. It is for the employer to see as to where an

employee is to be posted and what job is to be entrusted to him.

Even otherwise, the issue is no longer res-integra that in transfer matters, this Court is normally not to interfere unless the order is passed by an

incompetent authority or the same is malafide. In the case in hand, there is no such assertion in the petition to the above extent. The only ground

taken is that the petitioner has been recalled by the parent department prematurely before the completion of the project period. This, in my view, is

not a ground to call for any interference.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed along with the connected CMPs. Interim order dt.

23rd of Oct'09, shall stand vacated.