IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16100 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.274/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.), O/O THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM TELEPHONES, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.R.SUDHAKARAN SRI.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. A.HIFSUR RAHIMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TECH, BSNL, PERUMBAVOOR, RESIDING AT KAROLY HOUSE, YWCA ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16100/2009 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.5.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE BSNL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.10.5.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.15.5.2009 PASSED BY THE CAT IN O.A.NO.274/2009 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MISC.APPLICATION DT.28.5.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE BSNL BEFORE CAT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE MISC.APPLICATION DT. 2.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE BSNL BEFORE CAT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.1.6.2009 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE BSNL. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.2.6.2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.274/2009 RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR LETTER NO.DGM(A&OP)/GENERAL/2008 DT.29.2.2008. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DGM/(A&OP)/GENERAL /2008 DATED 28.4.2009. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ST/EK-203/7(b)/1/204 DT.1.5.2009 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16100 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.274/2009, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ petitioners. The applicant in the Original Application is the respondent. Ext.P9 interim order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The competent authority has transferred the applicant from Perumbavoor to Ernakulam. Earlier, the applicant was transferred to Lakshadweep. But, that was cancelled and he was allowed to remain in the mainland. But, in the mainland, instead of Perumbavoor, his native place, he was posted at Ernakulam. The Tribunal ordered to retain the applicant at Perumbavoor by the impugned order Ext.P9. The writ petitioners submitted that Ext.P9 has been issued without jurisdiction and the Tribunal cannot meddle with the posting of Officers as was done under Ext.P9. W.P.(C) No.16100/2009 2 2. We heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the order impugned is only an interim order and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same. Further, it is submitted that his transfer to Ernakulam is vitiated by malafidies. 3. It is for the BSNL to decide where its Officers should work having regard to its requirement. When the competent authority posts an Officer from Perumabvoor to Ernakulam, no court has any business to meddle in that. The only reason, given in Ext.P9 for interfering with the transfer, is the inconvenience caused to the applicant, who has returned after medical leave. We find that it is not a ground for a court of law to interfere with the transfer of an employee. If the competent authority wants the services of the applicant at Ernakulam, the court cannot say he should be retained in Perumbavoor, where his services are not required, and he should be paid from public funds. The deployment of the Officers according to the requirement of the BSNL is purely an executive function. Normally, a court should keep its hands off from such a decision. W.P.(C) No.16100/2009 3 The Court can interfere with a transfer if it is shown to be illegal or vitiated by malafidies. The applicant has not a case that the transfer is made in violation of any statutory provision. The bald submission that it is vitiated by malafidies is not sufficient to interfere with the transfer. Ext.P9 has been passed without bearing the above fundamental principles in mind. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. This order will not affect the rights, if any, of the applicant to approach the departmental authorities for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps