Excerpt
A single-judge Bench consisting of Honorable Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the actions of the 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings against the Petitioner directing him to work at Vijalapuram Chittoor district though such post does not exist at the centre. The actions of the Respondent should be declared illegal and arbitrary and should be set aside.
Facts
In this case, the Petitioner was working as a health supervisor at Kalakada, Chittoor district. The 2nd Respondent had issued a proceeding directing the Petitioner to work at PHC, Vijalapuram, Chittoor district on administrative convenience until further orders were passed. The Petitioner was working as MPHS(M) at Vijalapuram but the place at which he was transferred for work did not contain this post. The Petitioner claimed that he was instructed to work at a different place because of the political influence and in the absence of an existing sanctioned post at Vijalapuram PHC, he was directed to work at a place which is 200 km away from the present place of posting. The Petitioner said that this caused lots of inconvenience to him and his family. Aggrieved by the same the Petitioner requested the Court to declare the impugned proceedings to the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary and should be set aside.
Arguments Advanced
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before the Court that the information drawn by the Petitioner under RTI Act from the medical officer, PHC Vijalapuram, to establish that there was no existing post or vacancy was right. Therefore, directing the Petitioner to discharge duties at Vijalapuram was an arbitrary act and requested to issue directions to the Respondents.
The learned Government pleader for Services-III submitted before the Court that the Respondent No 2 was entitled to direct the employees in the district to work at a particular place due to administrative convenience and the present Covid-19 situation. Hence, the Petitioner should be directed to discharge his duties at Vijalapuram as it was not a transfer and requested the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed that the Petitioner was working at Kalakada, PHC as MPHS(M) and he was not due for transfer on the date of the proceedings but he was directed to provide his services at Vijalapuram which definitely caused inconvenience to the Petitioner and his family. It was not a transfer or deputation so the Petitioner could not claim the benefits of deputation or transfer. The time period for the service at Vijalapuram was also not specified for a particular period. Therefore, it was evident from the order impugned in the writ petition that the Respondent was not using the rules properly as there was no possibility of transfer as well as there was no post existing at that time. It was the clear intention of the local authorities to keep the Petitioner away from the local area and passing such an order was seriously illegal and arbitrary.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition declaring the act of Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and the orders of the 2nd Respondent are set aside. The Respondent was directed to revert the Petitioner to Kalakada from Vijalapuram and this order will not preclude the 2nd Respondent to transfer the Petitioner in accordance with rules either on administrative grounds or on administrative convenience.
Click here to view the judgement
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
