AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by a person working as Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM, O and M City Sub-
Division No. 2, Vijaya Road, Dharwad and involves the question of competition between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent to serve in the
very post and the Petitioner has approached this Court as it appears the employer in terms of the order dated 17.09.2008 copy produced as
Annexure-E to the writ petition has effected a transfer which is exchange of places between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent
Petitioner''s complaint is that the Petitioner had been recently transferred to the post and he has served in the post hardly for 12 days in terms of
the earlier transfer order dated 02.09.2008 copy of which is produced as Annexure-A and the Petitioner had reported to duty and assumed
charge on 05.09.2008 who had been relieved from his earlier place on 04.09.2008 vide Annexure-B and reported on 05.09.2008 to the present
place in terms of duty report of the even date copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, but he is immediately disturbed.
It appears that the earlier transfer order under Annexure-A was subsequently modified by the employer in terms of a Corrigendum dated
11.09.2008 produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition indicating that the earlier order of transfer should be read as a transfer in public interest,
instead of a transfer effected at the mutual request of the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent A subsequent order at Annexure-E had come into
existence in such background which seeks to restore their original places both to the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.
Shri F.V. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would vehemently urge that the Petitioner had hardly worked for a couple of days within
which he is again subjected to transfer, that the power of transfer has not been exercised in a bonafide manner and that the order deserves to be
quashed.
On notice having been issued to the Respondents while employer-HESCOM is represented by Sri. Kamate, Sri. Ravi Hegde learned Counsel
has appeared for the 2nd Respondent Submission on behalf of the 2nd Respondent is that the 2nd Respondent being a person heading the local
committee for redressal of the employees'' grievances etc., is required to stay at the headquarters of the company and therefore is interested in
remaining in the original place. It is only for this reason and in consonance with the policy of the company to provide convenient places to the
persons who are office bearers of local committees that the 2nd Respondent is retransferred to his original at the headquarters of the company.
Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent-Company and it is indicated that the transfer orders have been effected
only in public interest and not due to any extraneous considerations, that the present arrangement in terms of Annexure-E is also in consonance
with the guidelines and the policy of the company in so far as the posting of office bearers of the associations of the employees are concerned.
However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court had directed the 1st Respondent-Electricity Company to provide a list of
vacancies available in the post of Assistant Executive Engineers in the area which the 1st Respondent-Company covers. In response, a memo is
filed by the 1st Respondent wherein a statement is attached indicating that the 2 posts are available at Gadag, (Naragund Sub-Division - LTMR
Sub-Division), 2 posts at Karwar (Kumata Sub-Division - Karwar Division Office) and 3 posts at Ranebennur (Ranebennur Division -Ranebennur
Sub-Division-2) and one in Hirekerur Sub-Division and as of now while there are good number of posts, not less than 6 posts are available at
Dharwad as per Sri Kamate, learned Counsel as is obvious from the facts revealed in this writ petition. It is also submitted that the 2nd
Respondent while may be an office bearer has remained at the same place for 17 years.
A transfer which is an incidence of service is always to be made in public interest No employee has a right to remain in a particular place or post
The fight between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent is in respect of the posting in the very place namely Dharwad. Even here both appear to
he keen on the same post It only shows that the Petitioner while is very keen in serving in the post, the 2nd Respondent has developed a vested
interest. It is not desirable to have such state of affairs in public services or in Public Sector Organizations answering the definition of State under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Respondent-company is a public limited company meant to serve public at large and is a consumer service provider. In the circumstances, I
deem it fit to direct the 1st Respondent-Company to give a posting to the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent in any one of the six available
vacancies as indicated in the statement appended to the memo dated 16.10.2008 filed by the 1st Respondent-Company. The present transfer
orders are quashed and the 1st Respondent-Company is directed to issue an order giving posting to the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent
within a week''s time from today and transfer the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent to the place of posting which the order indicates from their
present posts.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule issued and made absolute.