THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.17022 OF 2009 Dt.18.8.2009 Between: K.C.Pandit … Petitioner And Officer incharge, D&D Cell 9VRDE) Bldg.No.0306, R.C.I. Complex Vignayana Kancha (PO), Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.17022 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. The petitioner was working as Technician “A” (Electrical) in Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (VRDE) Design and Development Cell at Hyderabad. After serving the Indian Army, he got the said appointment as an ex-serviceman. While so, he was transferred vide proceedings dated 17.4.2009 from Hyderabad to VRDE, Ahmednagar. As against the said transfer order, the petitioner made a representation on 18.5.2009 requesting for retention at Hyderabad on the ground that his transfer at this stage would affect the education of his children and it is not possible to set up two families one at Hyderabad and another at Ahmednagar. As the said application was not disposed of, the petitioner filed O.A.No.414 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, which was disposed of on 27.5.2009 directing the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.5.2009 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and further directed that the petitioner shall not be relieved till the disposal of the said representation. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal dated 27.5.2009, the movement order was treated as cancelled until further orders. After considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.5.2009 pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal dated 27.5.2009, the 2nd respondent passed order dated 1.6.2009 holding that the services of the petitioner at VRDE, Ahmednagar are required for completion of certain on going important projects within the PDCs and hence due to exigencies of services it is not possible to accede the request of the petitioner. Further attention is also invited to para 2(iii) & (viii) of the appointment order dated 5.5.2004 wherein the petitioner is required to serve any part of India or outside including Field service. The said order dated 1.6.2009 was again questioned in O.A.No.446 of 2009 on 4.6.2009. The Tribunal by order dated 5.8.2009 disposed of the said O.A.No.446 of 2009 with a direction to the applicant/petitioner to comply with the order of transfer within 15 days as movement order has already been issued and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the respondents or to the Grievance Cell seeking re-transfer to Hyderabad after reporting for duty at Ahmednagar. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. We have considered all the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has passed a reasoned order in O.A.No.446 of 2009, dated 5.8.2009, and it is just and proper to extract para 7 of the order as hereunder: “The law is well settled that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the cases of transfer is very much limited and the Tribunal cannot interfere in the transfer orders, unless the transfer order is issued by an incompetent authority or the impugned order of transfer was issued with malafide intention or when the transfer order was issued in violation of any transfer policy guidelines. Here in the instant case it is not disputed that the transfer order was issued by a competent authority. It is not the case of the applicant that there is any violation of transfer policy guidelines. The applicant pleaded in the applicant certain malafides and bias. But in the earlier application filed before this Tribunal he did not make any such pleas. So, it clearly shows that it is an after thought to avoid transfer as contended by the respondents. However, if the applicant has got any grievance, he can make a fresh representation to the Grievance Cell after joining duty at Ahmednagar, in which case, the respondents may consider the request for re-transfer to Hyderabad in the interest of education of his children. But there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the impugned transfer orders.” In view of the well considered order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the said order of the Tribunal does not warrant interference under Certiorari. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation after joining duty at Ahmednagar seeking re- transfer to Hyderabad and if any such application is filed, the same may be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 18.8.2009 kpr