JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner alleging victimisation and mala fide for
approaching the Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that Supreme
Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Virpal
Singh Chauhan, held as under:-
” Even if a Schedules Caste/Schedules
Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by
virtue of rule of reservation roaster than
his senior general candidate and the
senior general candidate is promoted later
to the said higher grade, the general
candidate regains his seniority over such
earlier promoted Schedules Caste/Schedules
Tribe candidate. The earlier promotion of
the schedule caste/schedule tribe
candidate in such a situation does not
confer upon him seniority over the general
candidate even though the general
candidate is promoted later to that
category.”
4. The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court of
India on 10th October, 1995. However, the respondent
issued a circular to implement the ratio of said
judgment from 30.1.97.
5. The petitioner challenged the said cut-off date
by filing writ petition No. 2118/98 before this Court.
This Court quashed the said cut-off date and directed the
respondents to implement the said circular from 30.1.96
and awarded costs of Rs.5,000/- against the respondents.
6. It seems that when the direction passed by this
Court to treat the said cut-off date from 30.1.96 in
stead of 30.1.97 and implement the order of Supreme Court
of India was not followed by the respondents then the
petitioner filed another Contempt Petition No. 479/2001
against the respondents in this Court.
7. It is at this stage when the notice of the
contempt petition was issued to the respondents and the
Court granted four weeks time to file reply to the
respondents, before filing reply to the contempt
petition, the petitioner was transfer on 8.10.2001.
8. The case of the petitioner is that several
seniors and juniors in the list who are continuously
working in Andhra Region as the petitioner nobody was
transferred out of Andhra Region except the petitioner.
9. It is contended before me by the counsel for the
petitioner that the transfer is not a normal transfer but
it is simply to victimise the petitioner as he has
approached this Court by filing writ petition and
contempt petition etc. and the transfer tantamount to
put pressure on the petitioner for his act of approaching
the Court which amounts to interference in the due course
of administration of justice.
10. On the other hand counsel for respondent has
contended that it was a routine transfer and the
petitioner has been transferred in his own region which
is permissible under the policy of transfer.
11. As a matter of fact when the first counter
affidavit in the present writ petition was filed by
respondents 1 & 2 on 24.11.2001, the respondents did not
specifically reply to the ground of discrimination as set
out in the petition in paragraph B & C. A specific order
was passed by this Court that the respondent must reply
to paragraph B & C of the petition, the respondents filed
an additional affidavit on 11.1.2002. That makes the
case of the respondents worse. In the additional
affidavit the respondents admitted that there are 25
persons who are seniors to the petitioner and are working
for more than 27 years in Andhra Pradesh Region and have
not been transferred ( at page No. 38 of the paper
book). In the same statement the respondents have also
admitted that there are 34 juniors to the petitioner who
are working for more than 27 years in Andhra Pradesh
Region and have not been transferred. Along with the
additional affidavit another list was appended by the
respondents to demonstrate that seniors to the petitioner
were transferred.
12. However counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the officers whose names appear at serial No.1 & 2
in the said list are very high in the seniority list that
is at number 4 & 5 and none else have been transferred.
13. The issue before this Court is not whether the
respondents can transfer its officers or not. It has
been held by various decision of Supreme Court of India
as well as this Court that transfer is not a punishment
if it is made under a policy. Therefore this Court would
have been reluctant in interfering in normal
circumstances when an officer is transferred by the
respondent, but in the case before hand the transfer does
not seem to be a transfer in normal course. The transfer
is mere to remove an irritant officer who has time and
again taken the respondents to the Court for getting the
order of Supreme Court of India implemented from January
1996 as he has contended that it was on account of
inertia of the respondents. That respondent did not
implement the order of Supreme Court of India at the
earliest opportunity. The decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India (Supra) was not implemented
in 1996 or after the judgment was pronounced in 1995 the
prayer of the petitioner was accepted by this Court and
the respondents were directed to implement the judgment
of Supreme Court of India from 1.1.96. In spite of the
directions to the respondents to implement the said
judgment from 1.1.96 the respondents did not implement
the judgment. A contempt petition was filed by the
petitioner and notice thereof was issued. Supreme Court
judgment till date has not been implemented by the
respondents. The petitioner was transferred out of the
Andhra Pradesh Region to Kerala Region although in the
same Zone. This is a clear case of victimising a citizen
who has approached this Court for redressed of his
grievances. The Order dated 8.10.2001 suffers from mala
fide and amounts to putting extraneous pressure on the
citizen not to approach the Court this practice and
attitude of the authorities requires severe reprimand.
The message by transferring the petitioner was loud and
clear that as he has approached this Court he has to face
the consequences. This approach of the respondents is
highly deplorable. Therefore, I issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the transfer order dated 8.10.2001.
Petitioner be brought back within one week.
14. Rule is made absolute.
15. Copy be given dusty to the counsel for the
respondents for compliance.