The facts of the case are that the petitioner an A.En., following several transfers i.e. ten within a period of five years, vide order dated 6-3-2019 came to be transferred from Malsisar to ACOS Jhunjhunu. The respondent No.2 Gaurav Dhaka posted there since 16-6-2014 was transferred as AEN (O&M) Gudha. The case of the petitioner is that within a period of four months he was again transferred vide order dated 26-6-2019 from ACOS Jhunjhunu to AEN (O&M) Gudha, merely to accommodate the respondent No.2, who had earlier been posted as ACOS Jhunjhunu since 16-6-2014. Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that the stark fact that the respondent No.2 was brought back as ACOS Jhunjhunu within four months of his transfer on 6-3-2019 makes it evident that the impugned transfer order dated 26-6-2019 is not actuated either by an administrative exigencies or public interest. It is instead vitiated by malice in law inasmuch as the discretion to transfer has been exercised merely to accommodate the respondent No.2 at Jhunjhunu. That cannot be the purpose of the vesting of discretion in an employer to transfer an employee. Until discretion to transfer is reasonably exercised, it will mutate into feudalistic patronage which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law. Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that a transfer within four months, as in the petitioner’s case, is inherently contrary to public interest. A transferred employee necessarily takes time to comprehend the work and familiarize in an office and if he is transferred out before he can so do and perform work in public interest it would be detrimental both to administrative exigencies and public interest. Mr. Madhav Mitra submitted that in the reply to petition, the respondent AVVNL merely vaguely postulates “nigam interest” in transferring the petitioner.
