Madras HC dismisses military engineer's plea against transfer

CHENNAI: A military engineering services engineer, who succeeded in nixing his first transfer in 2011 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), failed to earn a similar relief the second time, with the CAT and the Madras high court saying there was no scope for interference in routine transfers.
“The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is fairly well settled.The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine,” held a division bench comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice T S Sivagnanam last week.
The judges were passing orders on a writ petition filed by P R Anand Kumar, who entered the military engineering services as surveyor assistant, grade-II, in 1985. Later, the post was re-designated as junior engineer. On November 8, 2011, Anand was transferred from Chennai to Vishakapatnam. When his request to be retained at Chennai was denied by the authorities, he approached the CAT. Citing paragraph 36(b)(c) of the transfer guidelines, the CAT said he ought not to have been transferred in the middle of an academic year. It allowed his plea and asked the authorities to pass fresh orders if necessary.
After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities then transferred Anand to Hyderabad by an order dated February 10, 2012. He again rushed to the CAT, which dismissed his application. He then filed the present writ petition before the high court.
The division bench, dismissing his petition, said, “There is no challenge to the order of transfer on the ground of any mala fide exercise of power or on the ground that order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or it violated any statutory rule.”
Though the guidelines deal with time of transfer and states that care will be taken to avoid transfers during the middle of the academic year “as far as possible,” exceptions are available to meet an emergent requirement in the exigencies of service, the judges said. Moves (transfers) on administrative grounds may be ordered giving less time, they pointed out, adding: “The guidelines framed by the organisation cannot be held to a rigid policy, but form a scheme or the guideline. It is evident that it provides for exigencies on the ground of administration.”