AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 1st April, 2008, 4th April, 2008 and 18th June, 2008, being Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2008, which is Annexure-30 to the writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that he was transferred in a post, where there is no such post; secondly, he was compelled to work under his juniors; and thirdly, the order is without jurisdiction and trainted with mala fide. We have gone through the annexures and found that the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the Managing Director and in the administrative exigency he was transferred to Agra. It appears to this Court that he voluntarily opted to go to Agra and now acted upon on the basis of the direction under the order of the Managing Director dated 1 st April, 2008. The petitioner contended that if the order is mala fide and without jurisdiction, it can be challenged at any point of time. In support of his contention, he mainly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(88) FLR 536, Management, Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. v. Workmen, Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. and another. The ratio of the judgment is as follows: "We see no substance in the contention that he was entitled not to join. In our view, the dispute could have been raised and agitated even after joining. There was no justification for not reporting for duty." (Emphasis supplied)
(2.) WE also normally pass such type of orders in the cases of transfer, as follows: "Transfer is an incident of service. It should not be interfered with unless there is apparent illegality, mala fide or cause of exceeding jurisdiction. This is not such a case. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the same. However, subject to joining of the petitioner in the transferred place he will be entitled to place his representation to the appropriate authority about his personal inconvenience for the purpose of due consideration, who will do the same sympathetically and take a decision preferably within one month upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition and its annexures can be treated as part and parcel of the representation. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. No order is passed as to costs." We are of the view that the petitioner in the garb of making such allegations wants to go back to Lucknow i.e. his original place. If he has any grievanee, it is always open, as per our general order, to make appropriate representation therefor. But the Court normally does not interfere with the order passed in public interest or in administrative exigency. Moreover, the petitioner has voluntarily wanted to join in the post even for a short while and acted upon on the basis of the order/s passed by the Managing Director. At this stage, the point whether Managing Director is authorised by the appropriate Board or not, is a futile attempt. So far as supersession by other officers is concerned, it has been categorically submitted by Sri Sanjay Bhasin, who appeared for the respondent No. 2, that there is no question of supersession of the petitioner. The petitioner is holding very senior post than other persons, namely, Sri Vishnu Mohan and Ms. Manisha Nagar. The official direction was given to report the petitioner directly in absence of those officers which under no circumstances can be seem to be supersession. Therefore, in all we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned hereunder at all. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations, however, without imposing any post.
(3.) IN any event, it is yet open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for consideration of his cause for re-transfer, if any, to the parent post and when it will be made, the authority concerned will consider the same in accordance with law.;