By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: It is reported that a request has been made to issue directions to cancel the transfer order and to stop harassing and targeting woman employees in BBMP by way of transfers in middle of the year . During election code of conduct no transfers can be made and it is requested to stop illegal transfer of Smt Geetha Junior Health Inspector on 04-02-2016 by Assistant Commissioner (Admin) BBMP working in ward number 76 and it is clear case of discrimination against woman .As per The Commissioner ,BBMP, Circular bearing No.B12(6A)/PR/363/2013-14, dated 20.03.2014 no transfer can be effected for C&D groups employees within three years and Smt Geetha Junior Health Inspector has not even completed one year at ward number 76 and she is efficient and able officer having good track record and she have no complaint from public and corporator and MLA of the area . BBMP commissioner has been directed in writ petition No.6577/2014 (s-tr) dated the 1st day of April, 2014 that henceforth Commissioner shall effect the transfers and posting in terms of said circular cited.
In view of the above and the undertaking given by the Commissioner of BBMP by way of affidavit filed in HKHC writ petition No.6577/2014 (s-tr) dated the 1st day of April, 2014 , that the transfers and postings of the employees in Group 'C' and 'D' Cadres, henceforth, would be regulated in terms of the said Circular,The action of Assistant Commissioner (Admin) BBMP transferring Smt Geetha Junior Health Inspector on 04-02-2016 is illegal and arbitrary .
In view of the displeasure expressed by the HKHC on the frequent transfers and postings effected, though within the same zone, but on the basis of the recommendation letters issued by the politicians, which is not in administrative exigencies, the Commissioner was directed to come up with a proposal to avoid the frequent transfers and to prevent the political interference. The Commissioner submitted that a resolution dated 30.08.2012 was adopted by the BBMP with regard to the minimum tenure of Group 'A' and 'B' Officers, as two years and in respect of Group 'C' and 'D' Cadres, as three years, in a place. The Commissioner submitted that, within the zone, the power to transfer has been delegated to the Joint Commissioners and in view of the developments noticed , he assured that a Circular would be immediately issued, restricting the transfer and posting of Group 'C' and 'D' employees, within a zone, for a period of three years. Accordingly a circular was issued Circular bearing No.B12(6A)/PR/363/2013-14, dated 20.03.2014, issued by the Commissioner, BBMP and submitted that, henceforth, the transfers/postings of Group 'C' and 'D' employees would be regulated in terms of the said Circular.
In SARVESH KUMAR AWASTHI Vs. U.P. JAL NIGAM, (2003) 11 SCC 740, Apex Court having noticed that transfers had been effected on the recommendations, either of Ministers or MLAs/MPs/MLCs, has held as follows:- "In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration."
People and officers are invited their attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely - Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1997) 6 SCC 169; and, B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, AIR 1987 SC 287. In both these judgments also, it is indicated that if an act is done for ulterior motive on extraneous consideration and is done for achieving some other purpose, the act may be termed as arbitrary or an act of malafide. If the power is exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations or it amounts to colourable exercise of power, the same can be interfered with by this Court. The test, therefore, would be to ascertain as to whether the allegations of malafide alleged are really in existence or is the mere apprehension of the person concerned. The surrounding circumstances must be taken note and a decision arrived at after evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances available in a particular case.