9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Union of India had failed to give any reasons for departing from the general policy, which was permissible in exigency of service. Union of India had failed to make out a case for that and the record placed before him did not establish any such exigency. He held that the plea of transfer, being in exigency of service was an after thought and not supported from record. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of transfer/posting of respondent to Secunderabad. (2) Before we go into the submissions made by the learned counsel, the facts in brief may be noticed: (3) The respondent presently a Colonel in the Army had permanently seconded to the Director General Quality Assurance (Electronics) in 1983. From 1983 to 1989, he was posted at bangalore and from 1989 to 1993, he was posted at Secunderabad. On being promoted as Colonel in 1993, he was posted in Delhi at Head Quarter Directorate of Quality Assurance (Electronics) as Joint Director till September, 1995. On 14-9-1995, the respondent was posted as Commanding Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Electronic). The respondent's case 'is that the normal tenure of a Commanding Officer was two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the then Joint Director, CoL J.S. Kapoor, as Brigadier. The Missile System Quality Assurance Agency at Secunderabad required the specialised expertise as it was handling the project of national importance, viz. the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). The respondent who had earlier exposure to such specialized work, on account of his expertise was found to be eminently suitable and given the posting order. It is stated that the posting had been made with the due approval of the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Science and Technology, and that the record had been shown to the learned Single Judge. It was urged that the proposal and approval of the competent authority for the respondent's transfer, was shown to the learned Single Judge, who, on 24.1.1996, did not stay the posting order and it was only on 7.8.1996 that the impugned order was passed." Mr. Tikku further argued that the respondent's representation was duly considered by the competent authority but, considering the officer's suitability and exigencies of service, the same was rejected. However, the reasons which necessitated a departure from the policy were not com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icials who could be considered for the said post, the appellant was called upon to produce the communications and record relating to the requisition for filling up the said post and to File affidavits disclosing the particulars _of the officials who were available for the said posting. This was done in view of the peculiar, circumstances of this case and to satisfy ourselves that the departure from the policy was, indeed, due to exigency of service and the posting was not vitiated by extraneous and irrelevant considerations as claimed by respondent. (12) The appellants have Filed the additional affidavit dated 20.11.1996, wherein the Assistant Director, Dgqa, has deposed that the vacancy of Joint Director was required to be filled by a suitable officer having quality assurance experience in Missile System. The appellants, in another affidavit dated 5.12.1996, have explained that the posting of the respondent at Msqaa at Hyderabad was to the post of Joint Director. It was immaterial that the respondent was posted as Joint Director (Documentation) while Shri V. Uma Maheshwar Rao, was holding charge as Director General (Prithvi), the charge earlier held by Col-J.S. Kapoor continued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd had been selected as a faculty member to be posted to the defense Institute of Quality Assurance. It is, thus, stated that Col. D.B. Bhide, respondent was the only officer available at the disposal of Dgqa who had collier served in the establishment dealing with the Missile System having requisite experience and expertise and thus found suitable for the posting. We find the Explanation and justification tendered by the Appellants reasonable and plausible deserving acceptance. (15) It is not the function or within the jurisdiction of this Court to question the decision on transfers and posting or to evaluate the comparative merits of the officers who could have been posted or considered, which falls exclusively within the domain of the concerned authorities. This is so since transfer and posting is an incidence of service and unless the same is vitiated by malafides or is on totally extraneous considerations, this Court would not interfere with the transfer or postings made. (16) Learned counsel for the respondent had placed reliance on the case Rarndhar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1993 (4) Scr 349. She relied on certain observations made in this case wherein the Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise in the present case. However, the following observations of the Apex Court may be usefully noted: "23........Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of I he service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala tides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated." (19) In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas (1993)IILLJ626SC the Apex Court has held that unless the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
