IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22178 of 2006(M)
1. DR.G.NANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GNERAL,
3. THE DIRECTOR,
4. DR.MOHAN JOSEPH MODAYIL,
5. DR.E.VIVEKANANDAN,
6. DR.E.V. RADHAKRISHNAN,
7. DR.N.G.K. PILLAI,
8. DR.M.RAJAGOPALAN,
9. DR.M.SRINATH,
10. DR.R.SATHIADAS,
11. DR.SUNILKUMAR MOHAMMED,
12. DR.K.K.VIJAYAN,
13. DR.RANI MARY GEORGE,
14. DR.G.GOPAKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SC, ICAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :21/08/2006
O R D E R
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 22178, 22218, 22219, 22220, 22225,
22226 & 22227 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August 2006
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor,J
The writ petitioner could not successfully assail the orders transferring
them from different stations to other different stations. The orders have been
passed by the Director of an institution namely Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute (CMFRI). The main contention was that going by the
guidelines governing transfer, it had not been approved by the committee duly
constituted. The committee had not really decided to transfer the petitioners.
But the Tribunal below did not accept these contentions. The Tribunal below, in
its judgment impugned before us, has seriatum reproduced the reasons in
respect of each of the individual for such transfer while dismissing the original
applications impugning such transfer orders.
2.Same contention is re agitated before us. It is submitted that they are
not liable to be transferred even though they had completed the normal tenure.
The transfer was totally unnecessary and was not even recommended by the
committee. It is also submitted, referring to certain annexures produced in
evidence before the Tribunal below,
that the members of the committee did not really feel it necessary to effect such
transfers.
3.Transfer is always an incidence of service. An incumbent of a post
cannot always insist for a posting to a place of his choice. There may be a
situation, in the exigencies of service, that the expertise of an incumbent being
procured in a particular station or detached from a particular station to make it
available in other station.
4.We have gone through the reasons set forth by the administrative
authorities to effect transfer of each of the incumbent. The reasons given by the
administrative authority in support of transfer are in seriatum detailed in the
judgment impugned before us. Those detail disclose bare administrative
necessities. Therefore when administrative exigencies are disclosed for effecting
transfers, the Court dealing with the challenge against that transfer of the
petitioners invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 or section 19 Administrative
Tribunal Act can consider such challenge only applying the principles of
reasonableness. When some fair reasons which are prima facie sustainable,
are disclosed, merely because some other conclusions can also be drawn in, it
cannot be a situation for a Court or Tribunal to interfere with the transfer orders,
when such transfers do
not affect their fundamental rights or offend any statutory protection. A strict
scrutiny is not at all envisaged, therefore, in issues relating to transfer of an
incumbent from one place to another. Fortunately, our country is a large one.
Necessarily an incumbent may have to move from one station to another which
is bit far away depending upon the necessity. Therefore we are of the view that
the Tribunal had not gone wrong in considering the challenge focused by the
petitioners assailing the transfer orders.
Hence we find no merit in the writ petitions. But at the same time, we
make it clear that, if any of the petitioner places his grievance against the
transfer order, for consideration by the Director General, the second
respondent, within a period of one week from today, the Director General shall
consider the same adverting to the grievances expressed and shall pass
appropriate orders within a month of date of receipt of such representation. We
also make it clear that the findings of the Tribunal or by this court while
exercising discretion to entertain challenge against transfer order shall weigh
with Director General while dealing with the representation. In other words we
have
not dealt with individual grievances but have approached the issue depending
the exigencies of services.
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE
.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
RV/