THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21857 of 2007 Dated: 20.11.2007 Between: Shaya …Petitioner And: Union of India, reptd., by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Sanchalan Bhavan, New Delhi and two others. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21857 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the proceedings No.P(T)676/IDT/SV/RS-LA OA 571/05, dated 08.01.2007, passed by the respondent No.3 herein-the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, rejecting the application made by the petitioner, seeking transfer from the post of Raj Basha Superintendent to Law Assistant, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondents are the respondents, in the application O.A.No.128 of 2007, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 4. At the threshold itself, we may make it clear that though the petitioner has approached the Tribunal, by way of filing the application O.A.No.128 of 2007, which was dismissed by the order, dated 18.06.2007, thereby confirming the order, impugned in this writ petition, inadvertently, instead of challenging the order of the Tribunal, the order, which was challenged before the Tribunal was again challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, we treat that the present writ petition as has been filed challenging the said order of the Tribunal. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the O.A., before the Tribunal, is that as per Rule 102-A of Indian Railways Establishment Manual Volume-I, 1989 (for brevity “IREM”), she is eligible for transfer from the post of Raj Basha Superintendent to Law Assistant. 6. For ready reference, the said Rule 102-A is extracted hereunder: - “102-A: Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this Chapter, transfers on request on bottom seniority in the grades having an element of direct recruitment will be permissible against the quota prescribed for direct recruitment, provided that the employee seeking transfer possesses the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post to which transfer is sought for.” 7. A perusal of the above provision, makes it clear that notwithstanding the general principles of transfer, certain transfers, on request, can be made, provided the transferee would occupy the bottom place in the seniority list. 8. It further contemplates that such an employee, who makes a request for transfer from one post to another, shall possess the requisite qualifications to which he/she sought for transfer. 9. A bare reading of the said provision further makes it obvious that it is only an enabling provision, but not a provision, which has to be strictly followed. In other words, it is an exemption to the general principles of transfer. In a contingency, when a request is made, the same may be considered, provided that such an incumbent, who is qualified for transfer to the other post, possesses the requisite qualification. Therefore, this provision need not necessarily be followed strictly. However, basing on various contingencies and administrative exigencies, as an exemption, in rarest of the rare circumstances, it can be exercised by the competent authority. 10. The request of the petitioner for transfer has been rejected by the competent authority in the following terms: - “Although Rule 102-A of IREM provides that transfer on request on bottom seniority in the grades having an element of DR quota will be permissible against the quota prescribed for direct recruitment, who possess the qualifications prescribed for DR quota, the same will not apply in your case, since it is a general enabling provision, not binding on the Competent Authority for acceptance, except in the case of administrative exigencies.” 11. From the above, it is further clear that the post to which the petitioner seeks transfer is a selection post. If an incumbent, who possesses the requisite qualifications, makes a request and the same is scrupulously acceded to, the very concept of selection would be defeated. Therefore, only in rarest of the rare circumstances, that too, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, basing on the values and the departmental exigencies alone, this exemption clause postulated under Section 102-A of IREM, as extracted above, can be invoked, but certainly not as a matter of right, on mere request. 12. This Court cannot interfere in the matters of transfer, where no allegations are made regarding the transfer, and if the allegations are made in respect of mala fides etc., the same can be interfered. 13. For the foregoing, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and consequently we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20TH NOVEMBER 2007 DR