AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.—Heard Shri N.K. Majmudar learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners.
The respondent-original applicant was working as a Deputy Commissioner (Customs) at Vapi since 27.10.2004. Within a period of less than one year, during mid term, he was tansferred to Delhi by order dated 15.9.2005 as STO (Judicial) Department of Revenue, New Delhi. Immediately he challenged his transfer order qua him by way of O.A. No. 608 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short �the Tribunal�) on several grounds. One of the main grounds was that the post of Under Secretary, New Delhi is an ex-cadre post, therefore, he could not be transferred on that post without his consent.
It is stated at the Bar by Shri Majmudar learned Central Government Counsel that the Tribunal by an interim order stayed the operation of the transfer order qua the original applicant and by virtue of that order he continued to serve at Vapi.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgment and order dated 14.2.2006 quashed the transfer order qua the original applicant mainly on the ground that it was an ex-cadre post on which he was transferred, which could not have been done without obtaining his consent. The learned Tribunal also observed that clause 5.5 of the transfer/placement policy for Group-A officers posting to the Board is by deputation and not by way of transfer. It is pertinent to note that similar transfer order was challenged by another person by way of O.A. No. 896 of 2005 before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal wherein an admission was made in the reply affidavit that the posts of Senior Technical Officer in the Central Board of Excise and Customs/Central Economic Intelligence Bureau are ex-cadre posts filled up only by Indian Revenue Service Group-A officer.
For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the transfer order qua the original applicant way back on 14.2.2006. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners by way of this petition, which was filed on 11.7.2006. The petitioners have never thought about the urgent orders to be obtained in the matter. Today, this matter is placed in regular admission board.
Under the circumstances, when the original applicant is permitted to stay at Vapi from which he was transferred to Delhi in September, 2005 by virtue of interim order and after quashing of the transfer order qua him by the learned Tribunal on 14.2.2006, the original applicant continued to stay at Vapi. We, therefore, do not want to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal in our limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is summarily rejected.