Back
High Court Of Delhi
O.P.SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY - Respondent
Civil 5522 of 2002
Decided On : 10/25/2002
Transfer - Petitioner's Transfer to Mumbai - State Bank of India v. Anjan sanyal and Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 508 @ 514 - The court discussed the transfer policy dated 3rd May, 2000 and its interpretation, emphasizing the requirement for a meaningful interpretation of the policy to prevent its misuse. The court highlighted the mala fide nature of the transfer and the failure to implement the transfer policy, leading to the quashing of the transfer order.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Registrar at the National Institute of Fashion Technology in Delhi, was transferred to Mumbai, allegedly to accommodate another employee, leading to the Petitioner challenging the transfer through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was a colorable exercise of power and mala fide, as it was intended to accommodate another employee at the expense of the Petitioner. The court also noted the failure to implement the transfer policy, leading to the quashing of the transfer order.
Issues: The primary issue was the mala fide nature of the transfer and the failure to implement the transfer policy dated 3rd May, 2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a meaningful interpretation of the transfer policy to prevent its misuse and highlighted the mala fide nature of the transfer, leading to the quashing of the transfer order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the transfer of the Petitioner to Mumbai was quashed. The Petitioner was entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
( 1 ) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer to Mumbai by an order dated 16th August, 2002, Ordinarily, no Court should interfere with an order of transfer unless, as the Supreme Court says in State Bank of India v. Anjan sanyal and Ors. , (2001) 5 SCC 508 @ 514, "the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. "
( 2 ) THE Petitioner believes, and 1 think rightly, that his transfer to mumbai is a colourable exercise of power and, therefore, mala fide, But flrst, the canvas of facts.
( 3 ) THE Petitioner was appointed as a Registrar on promotion in the Delhi center of the National Institute of Fashion Technology, that is Respondents no. 1 and 2 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Institute) with effect from 12 august, 1998. The Petitioner has been continuing as a Registrar with the institute in Delhi.
( 4 ) THE Institute adopted a policy on 3rd May, 2000 "to deploy Registrars on integrated lines in the overall interest of the Institute instead of the current practice of compartmentalised approach". In terms of this policy, the services of Registrars were available for the institution as a whole and not for any particular center. The relevant clause of this policy is as follows:-
"when an (sic) Registrar does not want to accept promotion on transfer to center outside Delhi and from one center to another, he/she may make a written request that he/she may not be promoted and the request will be considered by the appointing Authority, taking relevant aspects into consideration. No fresh offer of appointment on promotion shall be made in such cases for a period of ONE YEAR from the date of first refusal. On eventual promotion to higher grade, such facility/ officer will lose seniority vis-a-vis his/her juniors promoted earlier. "
( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 who was working as a Deputy Registrar with the institute was transferred on promotion as a Registrar to Bangalore apparently sometime in July, 2000. He declined to accept his transfer and promotion and so, in accordance with the policy above mentioned, he continued to work as a Deputy Registrar in Delhi.
( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by an order dated 3 2th October, 2001, Respondent No,3 was transferred on promotion to Mumbai There is nothing on the record to respondent No. 3 was promoted to die post of Registrar (Admissions) in Delhi The consequence of the order dated 16th August, 2002 was that the petitioner was laterally shifted from Delhi to Mumbai and Respondent No. 3 who had been transferred on promotion from Delhi to Mumbai in October, 2001 was now promoted in Delhi without his having joined the promotion post in Mumbai.
( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by his transfer to Mumbai and the adjustment of respondent No. 3 in Delhi, the Petitioner represented on 17th August, 2002 against the order dated 16th August, 2002. Immediately thereafter, an order was issued by the Institute on 19th August, 2002 to the effect that Respondent no. 3 had taken over charge in the post of Registrar in Delhi and the petitioner was relieved of his charge on the same date, that is, 16th August, 2002. A further representation by the Petitioner did not draw any favourable response from the Institute with the result that the Petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court challenging his transfer to Mumbai.
( 8 ) A counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents. No separate counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 3.
( 9 ) AMONG other things, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the post of Registrar in Mtunbai was lying vacant since 1st October, 2001, The petitioner who is an experienced Registrar was preferred over other registrars and transferred to Mumbai in administrative interest. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was appointed with the Institute in delhi in 1986 and since then he has been working in Delhi despite the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
