THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26353 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners, who are eight (8) in number, are working in non-executive posts (Telephone Mechanics) in Srikakulam Telecom District of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). By an order dated 08.08.2011, the second respondent, namely AGM, transferred 36 Telecom Mechanics working in various places of Srikakulam District to other places in the same district. The transfers were affected in accordance with BSNL’s Employee Transfer Policy (Transfer Policy) communicated by the corporate office vide letter No.1-1/2007-Restg., dated 07.05.2008. Thereafter, so as to fill up 16 resultant vacancies, the AGM decided to conduct counselling on 17.08.2011 for these employees including the petitioners herein. Being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 08.08.2011 of the AGM as well the advice calling the petitioners for counselling to post them in the resultant vacancies, the petitioners filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985, being O.A.No.796 of 2011. They contended that the transfers affected in the middle of the academic year are contrary to the Policy; that the requests made by the petitioners have been pending since long; without taking into consideration of the petitioners’ requests the respondents transferred others and issued the advice for transfer counselling for resultant vacancies; while doing so they failed to observe the seniority and therefore conducting counselling for the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. The O.A. was opposed by filing a reply statement, inter alia, stating that all the petitioners, except petitioners 7 and 8 herein, exercised their option and gave the choice station; considering the option based on the principle of longer stay, the request was considered, 16 employees could not be accommodated in the choice stations and therefore, they were asked to appear for counselling. It was further stated that on that day, employees were advised to appear before the Committee of five (5) Senior Officers and transfers have been affected as per the Policy guidelines. None of the employees submitted their grievances. It was also alleged that all the petitioners have stayed at their stations for a long time and therefore, they cannot have any grievance. Learned Tribunal considered the controversy with regard to the Transfer Policy and found no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents in transferring 36 employees as per their option and conducting transfer counselling to the petitioners and others. The O.A. was, accordingly, dismissed on 15.09.2011. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that the guidelines contained in the Transfer Policy were not followed strictly; the petitioners’ transfers were treated as request transfers denying them the travelling allowance and transfer pay; the long stay of the petitioners at one place does not disentitle them to make an option for choice of station as Seethampeta is the only one station which is identified as a tenure station. We have perused the Original Application, the reply statement of the respondents filed therein, the order of the learned Tribunal and the other material available on record. We are afraid, we cannot accept any of the submissions made by the petitioners. When a person has completed the tenure period as per transfer policy at a particular place, he/she has no right to be retained in the same place for all the years to come. The transfer counselling is an exercise to minimise the hardship to the employee by posting such employee to a place of choice. The competent authority could have transferred a person without obtaining choice in which case as per the Fundamental Rules, no Travelling Allowance/Transfer Pay is payable. In this case also, so as to implement an employee-friendly policy the respondents conducted counselling for the resultant vacancies and we do not find infirmity therein. The petitioners do not attribute mala fides to anybody. Further, when they were challenging the order of transfer, they did not even implead employees who are likely to be affected. When the petitioners already participated in the counselling, they are bound by the decision of the competent authority. Instead in a great haste they approached the Tribunal to pre-empt the competent authority from issuing orders. We are convinced that the petitioners approach to the Central Administrative Tribunal is not bona fide. We are not inclined to exercise any discretion apart from the fact that there are no merits in the case. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 23rd September 2011 RRB