Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. In view of the commonality of the cause in both the writ petition, they are disposed of together through this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 30405 of 2014, working as the Head of the Department in the School of Medical Education at it's Regional Centre in Angamaly, and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 30411 of 2014, working as the Head of the Department in the School of Medical Education, Gandhinagar, Kottayam, were subjected to transfer through Exhibit P2 order. Complaining of transfer in the middle of the academic year, thus affecting the academic prospects of their children, the petitioners are said to have made Exhibits P4 and P3 representations respectively to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University. In the face of imminent relieving from the present place of posting, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that Exhibit P2 merely declares that it is a transfer only on the premise that the petitioners and other employees whose names have been reflected in Exhibit P2 have completed three years of service and that once an employee has completed three years in any self financing institution, the said employee shall be subjected to transfer. The learned counsel has stressed that the transfer is not based on administrative exigency. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Director of School Education, Madras and Others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another [1994 Supp (2) SCC 666].
4. The learned Standing Counsel, on his part, has submitted that not only the petitioners, but also various other people have been transferred through Exhibit P2. He has further contended that if any differentiation is made at this juncture, it makes it impossible for the respondent University to administer properly, inasmuch as transfer is a necessary service concomitant. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that since Exhibits P3 and P4 are pending before the Vice Chancellor, it may not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits.
5. Indeed, through Exhibit P2, the respondent University has transferred not only the petitioners, but also certain other employees. It is further evident from Exhibit P2 that the transfer seems to have been effected on a simple premise that the petitioners and other employees have completed three years of service at one place and that its incumbent to have them transferred to another place. In this regard, it is not the case of the respondent University that all employees who have completed three years have been transferred en masse.
6. There is no gainsaying the fact that, as has been reiterated time and time again by this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, transfer is an incidence of service and it is not to be lightly interfered with while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In Karuppa Thevan (supra) in a very cryptic judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed thus:
“The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.”
8. In the light of the above ratio and in the light of the fact that Exhibits P3 and P4 representations are pending before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent University to consider Exhibits P3 and P4 representations of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners are to be relieved before Exhibits P3 and P4 could be considered, the whole issue raised in the writ petition renders itself academic or nugatory. To meet the ends of justice, in these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent University not to give effect to Exhibit P2 to the extent of the petitioners till Exhibits P3 and P4 representations are disposed of.
With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-