Geetha V.M. & Ors. vs Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

Held: No – The proviso of r.27(a) is merely an exception to the said Rule of maintaining the seniority from the date of appointment in the cases of ‘on request’ and mutual transfer – The exception is not attracted in a case of transfer by way of absorption made in public interest or in administrative exigencies – Transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest – Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of an employee – However, if employee makes a request due to some hardship and if the authority or the Government on being satisfied, posts such employee as per request, such transfer is not a transfer in public interest as it is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the public administration – In the present case, the transfer was made by way of absorption on the basis of option and not on the basis of request which was in furtherance to a policy decision of the Govt. to abolish the dual control system enhancing the efficiency of the administration of medical colleges and attached hospitals thereto giving it to DME withdrawing from DHS – Therefore, the transfer by way of absorption on exercise of option as specified in Appendix I and II contained in G.O. dtd. 25.10.2008 does not attract the proviso to r.27(a) which only deals with the transfer on request or on mutual request – Thus, the action taken in public interest due to administrative exigency even on option is different than the action done on request – Appellants exercised the option for absorption by transfer from DHS to DME in line with the policy decision and thus, it cannot be considered as a case of transfer based on their own request, volition or voluntary choice – Proviso to r.27(a) is not attracted in case of a transfer by way of absorption done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the Govt. – Transfer by way of absorption in public interest cannot be equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as specified in proviso to r.27(a) or applied mutually – Further, seniority of the absorbed employee cannot be disturbed applying the proviso of r.27(a) – Their seniority and inter-se seniority be maintained as per r.27(a) and 27(c) of Part II of 1958 Rules r/w clarificatory letter dated 24.04.2010 with reference to r.8 of Appendix I to G.O. dated 25.10.2008 – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 37, 39, 47, 51-53]

Words and Phrases – ‘Transfer’; ‘option’; ‘absorb’; ‘absorption’ – Discussed.