Umesh Chandra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

(i) possesses a recognised degree or diploma in engineering or technology and has had experience of not less than 5 years in a department of the Central or State Government which deals with the administration of the Factories Act, 1948, or the Indian Dock Labourers Act, 1934, or

(ii) possesses a recognised degree or diploma in engineering or technology and has had experience of not less than 5 years, full time, on training, education, consultancy, or research in the field of accident prevention in industry or in any institution; shall also be eligible for appointment as a Safety Officer: Provided that the Chief Inspector may, subject to such conditions as he may specify, grant exemption from the requirements of this sub-rule, if in his opinion, suitable person possessing the necessary qualification and experience is not available for appointment: Provided further that, in the case of a person who has been working as a safety officer for a period not less than 3 years on the date or commencement of this rule, the Chief Inspector may subject to such conditions as he may specify relax all or any or the above said qualifications.”

13. It is next contended that by an order of transfer, the employer cannot change the cadre of an employee or affect his status. It is evident that the area of operation of duties, scope of work etc. that was earlier assigned to the Petitioner at KBUNL, Kanti, Bihar was in complete derogation of the job profile as a Scientist, and needless to state that the Petitioner would be required to perform the same functions at Kudgi as there is no work of Research and Development, NTPC Kudgi being a Coal based Thermal Power Plant only, with no R&D Setup. The Transfer Order is illegal as it has resulted in degrading the status of the Petitioner as a Scientist and while the Petitioner cannot resist a transfer order, however, he can only be transferred to a post of equivalent status. It is argued that the Supreme Court way back in 1974 in the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 (4) SCC 3 held that upon transfer equivalence is to be seen not only in terms of pay scale but also the attendant conditions of service. In other words, the true criterion for equivalence is the status and nature and responsibilities of duties attached to a post. Reliance is placed on the judgment in State of Mysore vs. H. Papanna Gowda, 1970 (3) SCC 545 wherein Supreme Court held that transfer of Government servant to a body Corporate resulted in extinction of his status as a civil servant and would be invalid.

14. The next contention is that the impugned order dated 15.04.2020 is also in violation of order dated 06.02.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1289/2019 wherein it was observed by the Court that it would hope and expect that the Management of NTPC considers the case of the Petitioner in the spirit of getting the duties discharged for which he was appointed rather than being made to do jobs like overseeing the House Keeping or the Safety Department, etc. The petition was disposed of permitting the Petitioner to make an appropriate representation seeking to be assigned duties commensurate to his appointment and qualifications, but NTPC instead of implementing the order in its letter and spirit has rejected the representation mechanically and without dealing with the issue of considering the transfer in accordance with the appointment of the Petitioner. In the garb of giving an impression that the posting is to enable the Petitioner to acquire multi-dimensional knowledge or skills, NTPC is in fact destroying his career by taking him out of his cadre and making him work in areas for which he has no qualification or experience.

15. Another contention strenuously urged and labored upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Transfer Order is in violation of Clause 7 of the Job Rotation Policy dated 30.09.2017, which categorically excludes Scientists at NETRA from provisions of job rotation, due to their specialized qualifications and skills. Clause 7 provides a list of 13 functions which are excluded from job rotation and despite the said stipulation, vide the impugned order NTPC has erroneously excluded the Petitioner from deriving benefit under the said Policy, on the ground that Petitioner has been working at E[5] level since 01.01.2010 and the Policy does not apply at that level. This according to the Petitioner is an incorrect reading and interpretation of the policy, as clearly the Policy applies upto E[7] level, as on 30.09.2017, the date it was issued. In fact the Policy has been issued for the progress of the Organization as well as the employees and there is no reason why the NTPC should not adhere to its own Policy. Relevant portion relied upon by the learned counsel is as follows:- “4.0 Job Rotation Policy Applicability The job rotation policy shall only be applicable to all regular executives upto E[7] level, on the rolls of the Company as well as those who are on secondment to subsidiaries; joint venture companies of NTPC. In case of deputationists to other organizations, the period of deputation shall not be considered as job rotation.

7.0 General Conditions • The illustrative list of main functions, subfunction clusters and sub-functions is given as Annexure A. • Job rotation movement shall take place across the Main functions / sub-function clusters / subfunctions. • Every job rotation should be preceded by compulsorily going through relevant modules before embarking on the new role. Such trainings shall be coordinated by PMI / RLI / EDC at CC / Region / Unit respectively. • In the event of a promotion being accompanied by job rotation, the promotion shall be effective only if the recommended rotation is accepted by the executive. • Job Rotation shall be done on completion of specified period of 3 to 5 years at Sensitive Posts. • Executives who are due to superannuate within 5 years shall be exempt from job Rotation. • The list of functions which are excluded from the provision of job rotation are as under: * Medical * Legal * Company Secretary * NETRA (Scientists only) * Geology * Chemistry * Mining (Recruited specifically for Mining) * Safety (Qualified safety officers) * PMI (Recruited as Faculty only) * Corporate Communication / Public Relations * Rajbhasha * IT (Recruited specifically for ERP / Basis / ABAP) * Hydro (recruited specifically for Hydro) • Such executives who are found to be nonperforming / not aligned in the existing function an also be rotated to other function with an objective to give a chance to do better and in such cases rotation may be done even before the minimum mandatory period. • The procedural guidelines for policy administration are enclosed at Annexure-B. • Modification / cancellation / addition / amendment to the list of Main functions; Subfunction clusters and Sub-functions shall be done by Corporate HR Department with approval of Director (HR).

16. Last but not the least, it is argued that none of the Scientists in NTPC have been treated like the Petitioner and assigned the job of non- Scientists, and the Transfer Order is a result of malafide, discrimination and vindictiveness. Repeated postings of the Petitioner first to Bihar and then to Karnataka, allocating to departments like mechanical and operations and safety, wholly unconnected to his qualifications and job profile as also requiring the Petitioner to report to his juniors, reflects that there is no requirement of the Petitioner to be transferred and thus no administrative exigency can be pleaded by NTPC.

17. Per contra, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the NTPC supporting the Transfer Order argued that the Transfer Order impugned in the petition is in consonance with the Appointment order of the Petitioner and the Service Rules of NTPC. Clause 8 of the Appointment Order clearly stipulates that the designation could be changed depending on the work assigned to the Petitioner from time to time. Attention is also drawn to Clause 9 of the Appointment Order, according to which the Company reserves the right to post the Petitioner at any of its Offices / Projects / Subsidiaries / Joint Ventures or any Government Department / Statutory Body / Public Sector Undertaking, anywhere in India or abroad. According to Mr. Mehta, the job of the Petitioner carries a transfer liability both in India and abroad and he does not have any right to contend that he must continue to be posted at one place only. Genesis of the Appointment Letter is in the Service Rules of the Company which are to the same effect.

18. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as E[4] level Executive. The standard terms and conditions of appointment were duly enclosed with the Appointment Order and are binding on the Petitioner. Keeping in view the terms and conditions, the Petitioner was promoted from E[4] to E[5] level on 26.02.2010 with similarly placed employees. After a span of almost ten years, Petitioner was for the first time transferred from NETRA to Kanti, Bihar to work in a Subsidiary of NTPC Ltd. and has been recently transferred to Kudgi Project as he is required to work in the said Project, based on his educational qualifications and experience.

19. The next contention of Mr. Mehta is that the issue of transferability of the Petitioner in the background of his being a Scientist has already attained finality in view of the orders passed by the Courts in the previous round of litigations between the parties. His initial order of transfer to Bihar was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioner in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.738/2016. LPA as well as the SLP against the said order were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court, respectively. Writ Petition seeking direction for being transferred to NETRA in view of the Job Rotation Policy dated 30.09.2017 was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2018. In writ petition W.P. (C) No.1289/2019, Petitioner again sought directions to be transferred to NETRA and the grounds raised covered the aspect that Petitioner being a Scientist could not have been transferred. This petition was also dismissed by order dated 06.02.2020 and the Contempt Petition alleging violation of the said order was dismissed as withdrawn. In view of these orders, it is not open to the Petitioner to assail the impugned order on the same grounds, yet again.

20. Pleading administrative exigency, Mr. Mehta contends that the impugned Transfer Order to Kudgi has been issued purely on administrative grounds, as the earlier Officer who was required to join at Kudgi, on promotion, gave up promotion and did not join. The post cannot be left vacant and is required to be manned by an experienced officer such as the Petitioner. It is also argued that a wrong impression is being given by the Petitioner that his work profile or status would be adversely affected by the present transfer. Petitioner was appointed along with several other B.Tech or Engineering employees who have been working at similar positions across the Company and have been posted as per the job requirement. There is no change of the service conditions of the Petitioner, which will continue to be the same. Petitioner is presently working in the Safety Department, which requires a particular set of skills as upkeeping Safety of a Thermal Plant is a high technical task that needs trained and experienced persons since it includes safety, cleaning and maintenance of boilers, switches, gas, etc. Any minor negligence or error may result in mishaps and/or unwarranted accidents. Further, similar transfers have been effected in the past with respect to other Scientists, and the list of such transfers was placed alongwith the additional affidavit in the earlier round of litigation and is on record of this Court.

21. In so far as the argument of malafide by the Petitioner is concerned, it is argued by Mr. Mehta that the Petitioner has only made vague allegations of malafides without any actual incidents or material on record to prove and establish the same. In N.K. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 98 Supreme Court has held that there has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of malafide, and vague allegations without supporting material cannot help the Petitioner.

22. It is next contended that the scope of judicial review of this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in administrative transfers is extremely limited. This issue has been considered time and again by the Courts and is well settled by a catena of decisions that it is entirely for the Competent Authority to decide when and where a public servant is to be transferred. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service and cannot be said to adversely affect a service condition of an employee. No employee can claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is the domain and the prerogative of an employer to decide the place of posting, and the Court should not interfere in the administrative decisions as it also lacks the expertise to decide how an employee is to be utilized for carrying out the job assigned against a post at a particular place of posting.

23. Countering the submissions of Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Mishra, in rejoinder, sought to reiterate that under the garb of administrative transfer, Petitioner cannot be assigned jobs which are not in keeping with his qualifications, experience and initial recruitment. Reliance on two paras 8 and 9 of the Appointment Letter by NTPC is misconceived. Alongwith the offer of appointment, NTPC had appended a two-page ‘standard terms and conditions of appointment’ containing 12 paras, which were verbatim same for all types of Executives, whether generalists or specialists or from the Engineering / Chemistry / HR / Medical / Mining or Geology Stream. Being standard terms, they cannot be relied upon by the NTPC in the case of a specialist like the Petitioner. The terms would have to be read with the nature of appointment and the job profile of the post in question. By changing the nomenclature of the designation, the nature of work of the Petitioner cannot be changed by non-contextual interpretation of para 8, and likewise as per para 9, only posting is transferrable and not the nature of work. Careful reading of para 8 of the Service Rules shows that it relates only to transfer and not the nature of work.

24. In so far as the list of employees given by the NTPC in the additional affidavit filed in the Contempt Petition, it is argued by Mr. Mishra that none of the persons named in the said affidavits dated 14.09.2020 and 23.09.2020 were having the qualification and R&D Training or experience of a Scientist, and the list is thus irrelevant.

25. As far as the argument that the issue of transfer of the Petitioner as a Scientist has attained finality in the earlier rounds of litigations is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that the stand of NTPC is totally unsustainable. W.P.(C) No.738/2016 was not decided on merits and was disposed of as infructuous as the Release Order had been passed during the pendency of the petition, in the absence of an interim order of stay. Division Bench in the appeal dismissed the same as not maintainable and in so far as the SLP is concerned, the same was dismissed ‘in limine’ and therefore there is no affirmation of the orders passed by the Courts. In W.P.(C) No.11382/2018, this Court directed the NTPC Management to decide the representation dated 19.12.2017 made by the Petitioner while dealing with the issues raised by him. Representation was, however, rejected by erroneously observing that the Job Rotation Policy was applicable only up to E[4] level and by corelating the same incorrectly with Clause 4.[2] of the Career Development and Succession Policy whereas the relevant clause is Clause 4.3. W.P(C) No.1289/2019 was disposed of by directing NTPC to decide the representation as and when made by the Petitioner, which the Petitioner did on 18.02.2020. Contempt Petition was withdrawn solely on the ground that the Contempt jurisdiction is limited in its nature and the appropriate remedy was to file a writ petition. Thus, it cannot be argued by the Respondents that the issue of transferability of the Petitioner in the background of his being a Scientist has attained finality in the earlier rounds of litigation.

26. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Solicitor General of India for the NTPC as well as counsel for the Union of India.

27. The facts that emerge from the narrative above are that the Petitioner was appointed at the E[4] level pursuant to an Employment Notice dated 30.10.2004. It is undisputed that he was recruited against an advertisement which had prescribed specific qualifications and post qualification experience related to Mechanical / Chemical Engineering. It is also undisputed that the Petitioner was working at NETRA for over ten years until he was transferred on 29.01.2016 and posted at Kanti, Bihar, firstly in Operations (General) and then in Operations (Shift), followed by Operations (House Keeping) and then in the Safety Department. Petitioner had initially challenged his Transfer Order dated 14.07.2015 in W.P.(C) 738/2016 but was unsuccessful in getting an order quashing the Transfer Order. The order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and finally by the Supreme Court when the SLP(C) was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2016. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner made a representation dated 19.12.2017 seeking transfer back to NETRA on the basis of a Corporate Circular No. 841 of 2017 dated 30.09.2017 which was a Job Rotation Policy. On the representation being rejected, Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) 1289/2019 which was disposed of on 06.02.2020.

28. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court vide order dated 06.02.2020, the Petitioner made a representation which was rejected by NTPC vide order dated 15.04.2020 and which is impugned in the present petition. Subsequently, the Petitioner was transferred vide order dated 22.10.2020 to NTPC, Kudgi as Senior Manager in Safety Department and the said order is the substantive order challenged in the present petition.

29. The fulcrum of the arguments of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Scientist (R&D) with special educational qualifications and specialization in the field of Engineering and can only be deployed at such Establishments of NTPC where he can be utilized to work as a Scientist, and therefore transferring him to the Safety Department at Kudgi is violative of his very appointment and specialization. Added to this is the argument that the Petitioner is governed by the Job Rotation Policy dated 30.09.2017 and the Scientists, NETRA are categorically excluded from job rotation by virtue of Clause 7 of the Policy, and hence the impugned Transfer Order is contrary to and violative of the said policy. The argument is elaborated by contending that a Scientist cannot be made to work against non-scientific posts, and working in the Safety Department is changing the entire nature of work of the Petitioner including his status and is derogatory in terms of job profile.

30. There is no doubt that as per the advertisement the educational qualifications required were in the field of Mechanical/Chemical Engineering and the Petitioner, as indicated from the appointment letter, was appointed to the post of ‘Scientist’ at E[4] level. However, as rightly contended by Mr. Mehta, it was clearly stipulated in Clause 8 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of Appointment, appended to the appointment letter that the designation of the Petitioner could be changed depending on the work assigned from time to time. Relevant clause is as under:-

31. While the Petitioner has sought to argue that these are standard terms and conditions which are appended alongwith appointment letters of employees belonging to various cadres such as Medical, etc., but it cannot be overlooked that the terms and conditions were part of the appointment conditions and were accepted by the Petitioner with open eyes and without any demur or protest. No objection has been raised to these terms and conditions by the Petitioner through his earlier years of service and were well known to him and understood by him while accepting the appointment. Mr. Mehta is also right in his contention that the job of the Petitioner carries not only an All India Service Liability but he can even be posted abroad, if so required on account of administrative exigency. By virtue of Clause 9 of the terms of appointment, the Petitioner was well informed that the postings in NTPC were transferrable and the company reserved the right to post him at any Office / Projects / Subsidiary / Joint Venture or any other Government Department, etc. in India or abroad. Clause 9 is as follows:

32. This term of the service condition was also clearly known to the Petitioner when the appointment letter was issued and was accepted by him. Petitioner cannot therefore claim that he has a right to remain posted at a particular place, as his terms and conditions of appointment enable NTPC to post him as per the administrative exigencies and/or requirements. Transfer is therefore an incident of service of the Petitioner.

33. In so far as the argument that the Petitioner cannot be transferred against a post which carries non-scientific functions is concerned, while there cannot be a doubt that an employee must be deployed against posts where his educational qualifications and experience as well as expertise can be best utilized, however, it is equally settled in law that it is the prerogative and the domain of an employer to decide as to where and how an employee has to be transferred and deployed as per the administrative requirements and exigencies. It is neither the role of a Court nor its expertise to substitute its own decision or wisdom in deciding the place of posting of an employee, unless the transfer is malafide or violative of a Policy or a Statutory Rule. Petitioner was initially deployed at NETRA where his services were utilized for over ten years but eventually the NTPC transferred the Petitioner to Bihar to utilize him in the Operations & Maintenance Department and thereafter in the Safety Department. By the impugned Transfer Order, the Petitioner stands transferred to Karnataka in the Safety Department. The Respondents have sought to explain during the arguments as well as in the Written Submissions that the transfer of the Petitioner was initially done to KBUNL, Bihar as there was a requirement in that place as also to enable the Petitioner to acquire multi dimensional knowledge and skills for self development, to shoulder higher managerial responsibility and provide opportunity in diversified geographic and operational environment. As far as the present transfer is concerned, it is the categorical stand of NTPC that it is on account of pure administrative exigency, as the earlier Officer who was to join on promotion did not join and also gave up promotion. It is also explained that there has been no degradation of the work profile or cadre or service condition of the Petitioner, and that similarly placed employees with Engineering Degrees have been posted across the Plants of the Company depending on the requirement of the officer at a given place.

34. Mr. Mehta has during his arguments specifically taken a stand on instructions that the Petitioner is giving an impression as if the work of House Keeping or such like work in the Safety Department is akin to the job of House Keeping in Hotels and that the nature of work is far from a job requiring Engineering skills, but this is incorrect. It is clarified that the work in a Safety Department requires a special Engineering skill as it involves safety of a Thermal Power Plant, which can only be executed by a trained and experienced person as it includes safety, cleaning and maintenance of boilers, switches, gas, etc. and any minor negligence or error can result in mishappening and do require engineering knowledge and skill. It is beyond a doubt that it is for the NTPC to decide as to how the Petitioner has to be best utilized keeping in view his qualifications and experience. If the Competent Authority has taken a considered decision to utilize the skills and expertise of the Petitioner in the Safety Department, keeping in view the technical nature of the work executed therein, there is no reason for the Court to intervene and substitute its decision, more particularly when the Court has no expertise to decide how an Engineer can be utilized by the employer. These are decisions best left to the employer and are beyond the limited scope of interference in transfer matters while exercising power of judicial review.

35. Petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Job Rotation Policy to contend that Scientist, NETRA are excluded from the said Policy and therefore the transfer of a Scientist working in NETRA cannot be made on account of job rotation. The argument of the NTPC per contra is that the said Policy does not apply to the Petitioner as he is not in the E[4] level as also that the NTPC has a separate Transfer Policy under which the impugned transfer has been effected. While I do find force in the contention of the Petitioner that the Job Rotation Policy applies to Executives at the E[5] level as well and it is wrong for the NTPC to contend that it is only applicable at E[4] level, however, this argument would still not inure to the advantage of the Petitioner, for two reasons. First and foremost, the issue that the NTPC has a separate Transfer Policy is no longer res integra. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) 1289/2019 Petitioner had raised an identical ground while challenging his transfer to Bihar. The contention raised was recorded in para 3 of the Order dated 06.02.2020 which is as follows:-

36. NTPC had opposed the said contention and the arguments as recorded in para 4 of the said order are as follows:-

37. The Court had categorically observed that NTPC maintains a separate Transfer Policy for Executives and had found merit to this extent in the arguments of the counsels for NTPC. Relevant part of para 5 of the Order dated 06.02.2020 is as follows:-

38. Once the Court has already observed that there is a separate Transfer Policy, the Petitioner cannot rely on the Job Rotation Policy out of context to challenge the Transfer Order based on a clause of the latter Policy. Additionally, if one was to peruse the said Policy dated 30.09.2017, it is evident by a bare reading that the Policy was brought in to provide diverse on-the-job learning opportunities to Executives to enable continuous capability building and to equip them with knowledge and skills for assuming higher responsibilities in future and for career growth. Clauses 2.0 and 3.0 would shed light on the rationale behind the Job Rotation Policy and are as follows:- “2.0 With the aforementioned objectives the existing Job Rotation Policy has been revisited to make it more effective and in tune with individual and business requirements. The revised Job Rotation Policy is placed at Annexure-I.

3.0 This policy supersedes the earlier scheme of Job Rotation and Career Growth Path and all other communications with regard to Job Rotation.”

39. It is in this context that Clause 7, heavily relied upon by the Petitioner, laid down general conditions of Job Rotation and includes the list of functions which are excluded from the provision of job rotation and this list includes NETRA (Scientist) only. It is thus clear that the objective of the Policy is completely distinct from the Transfer Policy where transfers are made on different considerations. In fact it is crucial to note at this stage that in LPA 380/2016, one of the contentions raised before the Division Bench was that given the nature and purpose of the Transfer Policy, Petitioner’s posting to a non-scientific post was legal malice. Relying on the Transfer Policy, especially paras 1.[2] and 1.4, it was contended that keeping in view the mandate to optimally utilize every personnel’s capacity, posting to a non-scientific position i.e., in Operations and Maintenance, was unwarranted. The Division Bench taking note of the argument observed that Petitioner as a public employee was on notice of the conditions of his employment, that not only was he entering a transferrable service but also that he could be moved out atleast once after ten years, and therefore the question of appropriateness of the posting would hardly be subject matter of scrutiny in judicial review. The conclusion that one draws from the order of the Division Bench is that the Court did not agree with the argument of the Petitioner that he could not be posted against a non-scientific post being appointed as a Scientist. Therefore this argument of the Petitioner cannot be sustained in the present petition. Relevant para of the Order dated 03.06.2016 is as follows:- “2. The Single Judge’s rejection of the appellant’s writ petition is the subject matter of these proceedings. Two grievances were articulated during the course of the proceedings. First that given the nature and purpose of the transfer policy, the appellant’s posting to anonscientific position in essence is legal malice and two, that denial of the relevant PACE forms and Normalisation/ Moderation recorded relevant to the petitioner’s consideration for promotion to E-6 position was wrongful. With respect to the first submission, Mr. V.K Garg, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the transfer policy-especially in paras 1.[2] and 1.[4] and highlighted that keeping in view the organisational mandate to optimally utilise every personnel’s capacity, the impugned posting to a non-scientific position i.e. one entailing operation and maintenance was unwarranted. According to him, this amounted to legal malice and therefore was unsustainable in law. The petitioner, as a public employee was on notice of the conditions of his employment that not only was he entering transferable service but also that he could be moved out at least once after 10 years. In these circumstances, the question of the appropriateness of the posting could hardly be the subject matter of scrutiny in judicial review given the entirety of the circumstances.”

40. I also agree with the contention of Mr. Mehta that the scope of interference in transfer matters is extremely limited, and ordinarily the Court should not interfere unless malafides are established or there are violations of statutory Policies or Rules. It is equally settled that no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. In this regard, I may allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.K. Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court observed that personnel management of Government departments must be left to department Heads as Courts lack necessary expertise of management except to the extent of limited judicial scrutiny. Relevant part of the judgement is as under:-

41. In so far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, Mr. Mehta is right in his contention that there is hardly any pleading to support the allegations of legal malice. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, (2009) 8 SCC 337 is apposite in this context. The Court observed:

42. In Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592, the Supreme Court delineated the scope of the Court’s interference in the context of malice as follows:

43. From the conspectus of the arguments made and the pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned transfer is a routine transfer made purely in the interest of administrative exigencies and there is nothing unusual or malafide. While this Court has no doubt about the technical qualifications, experience, expertise and calibre and credential of the Petitioner yet it can only be observed that it is for the NTPC to decide how to best utilise the services of the Petitioner. The Courts have been repeatedly observing that in the absence of malfides or policy violations or a detrimental effect on the career of the employee, the challenge to the Transfer Order must be eschewed and interference should be minimal.

44. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court does not find this to be a fit case to interfere in the impugned transfer order. The Petitioner is granted a joining period of two weeks from today to join the place of posting. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the present petition, the Court had directed the Respondents not to insist on the Petitioner joining the new place of posting as the matter was subjudice. Thus the period for which the petition was pending before this Court, including the period of two weeks within which the Petitioner has been permitted to join at Kudgi, Karnataka shall be treated on duty by NTPC for all purposes.

45. Petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application.

JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 04, 2021 yg