SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J. - (1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order of transfer dated June 22, 2012 passed by the Vice Chancellor of Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short IGNOU) transferring the petitioner from the post of Regional Director, IGNOU, Regional Centre, Port Blair, to the SAME POST AT RAGHUNATHGUNJ.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that in March 1998 he was appointed as Assistant Regional Director in IGNOU and while working at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, he was selected for the post of Regional Director and in February, 2011, he was transferred to Regional Centre at Port Blair of the said university. The petitioner has alleged that he has been transferred in violation of the transfer guidelines which has been annexed to the writ petition at Annexure P-5. The relevant portion of the said guidelines on which the petitioner has placed reliance stipulates that ordinarily a Regional Director will not be transferred before completing 5 years of his stay in a particular centre. It further stipulates that any Regional Director will be shifted on administrative reasons and whenever the exigencies of service so require. These norms/procedures of transfer were recommended by a committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor to consider the prodcedure for transfer of academic staff posted at the IGNOU Regional Centre and was approved by the Board of Management on March 01, 2002.
(3.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of transfer and the subsequent relieving order and a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioner from Port Blair to any other place except his home town Nagpur till or before the completion of 5 years at Port Blair. Ms.Nag, the learned advocate, has relied on the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande �vs-. State of Maharastra and others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 169. The Supreme Court in that case deprecated the government's practice of demoralizing honest officers by malafide order of transfer and found the order of transfer relevant for that case not to be in public interest. There the appellant had an unimpeachable performance of duties. The conclusion was based on this fact which obviously does not apply to the case here.;