AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of an employee (non-teaching staff) of Charuchandra College and is filed for writs and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to forthwith cancel or withdraw and/or set aside the purported notice of transfer dated January 19, 2013. The short fact necessary for the purpose of this case is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Typist-Cum-Clerk of Charuchandra College, Kolkata against substantive post w.e.f. December 1, 1986. She has been discharging her duties in such capacity and her pay was revised in accordance with the rules permissible. She was confirmed in the said post. Subsequently, by the impugned notice dated January 19, 2013 the Principal, Charuchandra College transferred her from day section to morning section without giving any opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved this application has been filed praying for the reliefs already stated.
Having heard the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that by the letter dated November 28/29, 1986 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Typist-Cum-Clerk in the Charuchandra College subject to the approval of the Government Body and the Government of West Bengal. According to her letter of appointment, the present working hours of the college is from 10-30 a.m. to 5-15 p.m. on week days and from 10-30 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. on Saturdays. The petitioner has been working in such capacity and there is no adverse report against her. On the contrary, by a certificate dated May 4, 2012 the then Principal of the said college certified that the petitioner was discharging her duties sincerely. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the present Principal, shifting her from day section to morning section.
The contention of the petitioner is that she has been in continuous service in day section of the college since the date of appointment. At the initial stage she was unmarried and after marriage she has been attending the college from her residence at P-39, Jublee Park, Brahamapur, Buttla, Kolkata 700096. There is no sufficient communication in the morning hours near her residential house and so, it is difficult for her to reach college before 6-15 a.m. in the morning shift.
Mr. Mukteswar Maity, appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was never posted in the morning shift from the date of appointment and she has been doing her job all along in the day shift and after the marriage it is not possible for her to attend the morning shift of the said college.
Mr. Maity has also contended that the transfer of the writ petitioner has not been approved by the Governing Body of the college, but the same was issued by the Principal of the college and as such, such transfer is illegal.
He has also contended that unlike the day section the morning shift of the college is being run by the self finance scheme.
Mr. Maity has also contended that before making such transfer the writ petitioner being a female employee was not given any opportunity of hearing and as such, the impugned order is violative of the principle of natural justice and so, the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Advocates for the opposite parties have raised objection to such contention raised by Mr. Maity.
Having due regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both the sides, I am of the view that the transfer is an incident of service and any employee if he/she holds a transferable service, may be transferred to any other place of posting as per rules provided for that purpose. In the instant case, at the time of initial appointment in 1986 (as appearing Annexure P-5 at Page No. 15), I find that there is an indication that the present working hours of the college would be from 10-30 a.m. to 5-15 p.m. on week days and from 10-30 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. on Saturdays and there is a clear indication of ''present working hours'' which expression signifies, in my view, that the working hours of the petitioner may be changed at any time.
From the impugned notice dated January 19, 2013, I find that the petitioner is not the only employee who has been transferred from day shift to morning shift, but, another office clerk was also transferred from the morning section to day section by the same Principal. Thus, from the initial appointment and the impugned order dated January 19, 2013 it is clear that the place of posting of the employees of Charuchandra College are likely to be changed for the convenience of the college and that is why, at the time of initial appointment there was an indication of ''present working hours''. So, the initial appointment does not ensure that the petitioner was employed only for the day section of the college.
So far as the contention of not giving the hearing of the petitioner before making the transfer, I am of the view that this contention is not tenable at all. The college authority may transfer if the situation demands. For that reason the hearing of the concerned employee is not at all necessary. So far as the contention that the Governing Body was not consulted before passing the notice of the transfer, I am of the view from the materials that the Principal is also the Secretary of the college and the Principal is the Appointing Authority of the said college. So, he has the power to transfer the employees working under him if the situation demands.
So far as the fund of the morning section of the college is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner need not be bothered about this matter. It is the function of the Governing Body to provide funds for payment of salary to the employees.
Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted, and I am of the opinion that the prayers as made in the writ application cannot be granted at all.
However, since the writ petitioner is a female employee and has been serving in the day section since the time of appointment, the representation submitted by her should be considered by the respondents within a certain time in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner appearing as Annexure P-6 at Page No. 20 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
This application is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.