http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: LAXMI NARAIN MEHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The petitioner  was transferred  from Kota to Mumbai on the administrative  ground as  indicated in  the order.  The petitioner  approached   the  Administrative  Tribunal.  The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur by its order dated November 28,  1996 has dismissed the same, Thus this special leave petition.      Learned counsel  for the  petitioner contends  that the petitioner was  transferred on compassionate grounds and the transfer is  not valid  in law.  Though he  might have  been transferred on compassionate grounds, in view of the express indication in  the order  giving reasons  for the  transfer, i.e., need  of experienced  staff at  the respective places, the transfer  order cannot  be said to be arbitrary. Then it is contended that the petitioner being and officer belonging to the  Scheduled Castes,  is entitled  to be considered for retention of  his posting  nearest his home town. It is true that the instructions have been issued as reproduced at page No. 18  of the  paper book to that effect, yet they would be subject to  the administrative exigencies. IT is stated that the services  of the  experienced officer were necessary and so the  transfer order  came to  be made. It is true that as far as possible, the convenience of the officer belonging to Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes may be considered and he may  be posted  near the home town, but the authority has power to  transfer him  when the administrative need arises. It  is  further  contended  that  the  petitioner  had  made allegations against  the officers  and  the  transfer  is  a vindictive measure  of punishment.  It is  seen that  he was transferred on account of administrative exigencies.      Under these  circumstances, we  do not think that there is any  justification to  interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner,  if so  advised and  is desirous, may made a representation before  the  appropriate  authority  and  the appropriate authority may consider it on merits,      The special leave petitions are dismissed.