AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Bhakthavatsaia, J.—The petitioner, who is the applicant in Application No.382/2011 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore Bench is before this Court challenging the order dated 26.09.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners transfer from Bangalore to Sagar is bad in law. He further submit that since the petitioner has already worked in "C" Station, he cannot be again posted to "C" Station, but the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of the matter and erred in rejecting the application. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the writ petition becomes infructuous on the ground that the petitioner has reported for duty as Engineering Assistant at Sagar on 09.11.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 24.10.2011 while issuing emergent notice to the respondents, stayed the transfer order pertaining to the ease of the petitioner if he was not yet relieved from duly. Therefore, he submits that the petition does not become infruotuous.
As par the impugned transfer order the petitioner has reported for duty at Sagar. The interim order was granted subject to a condition that he was not yet relieved from duty. But infect, the petitioner warn relieved from duty on 16.09.2011 itself and therefore the interim order made on 24.10.2011 with a condition is of no avail to the case of the petitioner. Even on the merits of the case is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has completed 27 years of service in Bangalore and he has 08 more years of aerobe, in our, wear, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. In the result, petition falls and the same it hereby rejected. Sri. V.Y.Kumar is granted three weeks time to file memo of appearance for the respondents.