IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2946 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.364/2011 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER -------------------- N.JOHN CHELLAPPAN, S/O.NASSYYAN, AGED 57, PROCESSING CUM QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPERVISOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING, KOCHI-16. RESIDING AT 31/1136-A, BHUVANESWARI ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI - 682 019. BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING, KOCHI - 682016. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R2 THIS OP (CAT) HAVIN GCOME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9.9.2011, THE COURT ON 29/09/2011, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. (CAT) 2946/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF M.Sc DEGREE BY RESEARCH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF Phd CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.4.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 364/2011 DATED 24.3.2011. EXT.5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A. NO. 364/11 DATED 25.8.2011. //TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. (CAT) 2946 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T P.S. Gopinathan, J. Petitioner is the applicant in O.A. 364 OF 2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. He is working as Processing Cum Quality Assurance Supervisor under the first respondent. Eversince 1980, he is in Kochi. In 1992, he was transferred from Kochi to Vizag. He assailed the said order before the Tribunal, which interfered with the order impugned on finding that the petitioner was pursuing his higher studies at that time in Kochi. Thus, the petitioner continued at Kochi. By order dated 21.4.2011, the petitioner was again transferred to Vizag. Assailing the said order, he moved the Tribunal alleging four grounds. First ground is that he was undergoing treatment in Amritha Institute of Medical Science. The second ground is that if there be a set of procedure for transfer, the seniormost should have been shifted. The third ground is that, if the officer transferred from Vizag to Kochi by the impugned order is entitled to compassionate grounds, the same grounds are available to the petitioner also. The last ground is that had the selection process been O.P. (CAT) 2946/2011 2 completed in time, there would not have arisen a need for transferring the petitioner to Vizag. 2. The Tribunal below, having heard either side, arrived at a finding that though the petitioner had been undergoing treatment, there was no serious illness that would adversely affect him in the event of transfer. Secondly, it was found that the seniormost employee retained is the Co- Consortium Principal Investigator in two projects funded by the World Bank to the tune of Rs. 2 crores and he is due for retirement in 2013. Thirdly, it was found that the incumbent who was transferred from Vizag had completed three years at Vizag and he is now transferred to Kochi to enable him to pursue his research. As regards the filling up of the post by new recruitment, it was observed that there cannot be any delay. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that there was no malafides in issuing the impugned order. No prescribed norms have been stultified so as to give a right to challenge the transfer order. It was further found that the administrative grounds compelled the respondents to transfer the petitioner and that there is no justifying ground to interfere with the order of transfer to shift the petitioner who has been continuously holding the post for the past 22 years. The retention of his senior was fully justified. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Now this petition under Article 227 of the O.P. (CAT) 2946/2011 3 Constitution of India. 3. Having heard either side, we find that the Tribunal had considered all the arguments advanced by the petitioner and had given good reasonings to non-suit the petitioner. We,concurring with the Tribunal, find that the first respondent had good reason in transferring the petitioner after retaining his senior and to accommodate another man who had been working for more than three years at Vizag, that too, to pursue research. The reasons stated by the Tribunal to nonsuit the petitioner is valid and sustainable. We also notice that, but for a transfer order in 1992 which was interfered by the Tribunal in time, the petitioner has been working in Kochi since 1980. No malafide can be attributed against the disputed transfer. The Tribunal has no way erred so as to be rectified in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-