at ms area comer or mnnm-um AT 3magm7n'3-.i E . m1-an mm um 11» ms? or smnms;a; i2;s:¢:ij - _ Pflflfifil' ms HOH'3LE mm. M). DIHAI€ARAfl;'*£:i§$EF " AND mm HOWBLE n:n.Jusr1a*§anuo:i;a}1i Between: The Dizector-in~ch.sni4g:é_««..V » " ._ " . Aathmpoiogical India, «. ' 27, Jawaharlal 'Nc11.1ftij.Roaé;i; Kalkata-700 O16, mpzwescntativcé . _ is new camping in _ V» " (By Sri v.Y.KumarV'%'.<.Advocai % D1; B,V. Rav§¥ ' V _ S] o B; werking as Research. Associatcwhysimlj of India _ _S'€)1';t31€¢_;t'fl Regional Centre Bhavan'; Bofii 2"' 3% Mys¢r::'.=s?o " ~ V» ' "Th t3 petitioner represents V the Ministty of Culture ' C-wqvmmmcnt of India, Ncw Delhi) S.S , Advocate ) Writ petition filed under Axticles 226 as 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the irnznpugncd order in ()..A. Writ Petition No. 11%; jai' % _ __1 : Petimm:-r :Respo&cnt Nome/zoos dated 22.8.2008 on the file of Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. This writ petition coming up for pn:_l1m_nary' i._ " 'A V' day, the Court delivered the following:--- . A (Delivered by " : T. The above Writ petitionv oxvder dated 22nd August, 2008 made: in 18/2008 on the file of the Bench, Bangalore. ( for the order of transfer dated Reeieendcnt from Southern Regional Regional Centre, Udaipur. 1) counsel for the Respondent,
the iransfer is contrary to the Guidelines issued
the Survey of Imia regarding posting and
ofax erfzpiefces, which governs the appellant herein.
11 as approved by the t in letter
h”eehh.’:=;.¢;.p:..h}14.13/%7~cA(n dated. 30.3.1972? and letter No.F’.11–50]83-
gem 14.9.1933 as modm, read as fofiows:
“‘ 5. Oficers engaged in research work
shall not be transfermd unless the mnject
onwhichheorsheisengafihasbeen
completed and report thereon submittedf
to the Regional Oficer or Supervisoriao
his safisfiaucfion and aooeptwby « l:a ¢-ad” ‘– A %
Ofiice, according to a 2 ”
programme, which Q . _n’o A
circumstanctes shall
of six months, am-r thé’
become due. ” A’ ”
1 1. oonmined
in Ciafiagéi-iifip .’ of the
H digéfiuon, may
at ‘” oflccr in public
osjoii gound, but
stick: be cnsnmd that
%’f}_fihei ;;mj¢cm am completed and
» ‘£10350:-1_ts are transferred. Any such
. however, be brought to
Ehe of the administrative
” : {emphasis supplied}
V’ The next ground urged on bchafi of the respondent is
.. 1 V order of fiansfcr sufiiers from malafide.
…._. …w.ww—
3) On the other hand, the banned counsel for .
herein, based on the instructions flout k V’
submitted that the project for which the
had not been oompieted and that xordeareif net ”
been brought to the notice of the admm1s;’ M’ in” 15.;
4) In the order dated
22.3.2003 which is ignfiiggfnqeaiiig fofiowing
the ratio laid case of UNION ore
mom AND S:!’§i’A.V.:’_;iAlf«t;AI?VfVI’)VtriA1*¥ DEBANATH AND
ANO’I’HER– the malqfideas alleged by
the respondent “net Herwever, based on the submission
°f:_”fl”5- project where the respondent was
woelfing hézltzctt and the orders of tmnsfer had not
bmught’ to trig of the adminisizatzive Ministry, quashed
hf transfer hold1ng’ that the same is violafive of
11.
Hence, the present writ petition.
6) However, Sri V.Y Kumar learned counsel for the
peti5mner-Departznent hmein, taking a diametriwliy opposite
7′?-;”‘*~
stand contends that the project where the mspondentlfifas K
had already been completed; and that, in:
order of transfer is sustamah’ le on the I V’ ”
7) The learned counsel for “xes;.*qg1deitt; « other
hand, reiterated his sub1nissie;e§:*1;a:ie ore;:t.l.:;ie in order
to sustain the order of the
8) We haV’=5 $0 the
submissions opinion, the
before the Tribunal
that the project uiarh_Vexe was working had not
orders of tnufa had not been
at the «name many. it may not
pmfier contra» plea raised befoze us. The
T’ aptionieft ._fé)r-tjfie pctifioxaervbeeent is to seek review of
‘ xdetedu ‘2–fé.8.2008 before the ‘I’n’buna1itseIf. Of course, the
petitioner seeks to suspend the order of tranaficr tiil
for the pe1itioner~department files a review petition.
{ emphasis supplied}
9) Sufioc it to suspend the order of the Tribnnal dated
22.8.2008 for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the