GIRISHA N S vs All India Institute Of Speech and Hearing on 8 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A) Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(i) CALL for records relating to the impugned order bearing No. SH/PL/CF.16/2026-27 dated 15.06.2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-A9; PERUSE AND QUASH the same as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 & 16(1) of the Constitution of India and being malafide;

(ii) ISSUE A WRIT, order or direction, directing the Respondents restraining the Respondents from effecting transfer of the Applicant out of the State of Karnataka and to accommodate him to the nearby place in the post of Ear Mould Technician to which he was appointed with all consequential benefits;

(iii) PASS such other orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: On the basis of a complaint of sexual harassment by a lady employee of AIISH Mysore, against the applicant, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted to look into the same. The Internal Complaints Committee, after completion of enquiry gave certain recommendations. The applicant was transferred out from his present posting at AIISH, Mysore to OSC of AIISH, AIIMS Rishikesh without disposal of the representation given by the applicant KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

against the Show Cause Notice issued to him along with a copy of ICC Report. His representation regarding the same and for cancellation of the transfer were not heeded to by the respondents. Hence, he has approached this Tribunal for relief through this OA.

3. Applicant

(i) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant, who was earlier working as Ear Mould Technician at OSC Centre, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Sagara in Shimoga District, was transferred to Mysore by an Order dated 04.03.2024 where he reported for duty on 08.03.2024. The applicant has a clean record of service but for the allegations recently made against him which are vexatious and made with an ulterior motive. Based on a complaint by the lady victim of sexual harassment by the applicant at the place of work, a Notice was issued to him, and he submitted his reply.

(ii) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the respondents were not satisfied with the reply given by the Applicant, the applicant was subjected to an internal Enquiry conducted by an Internal Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment Act of 2013. The Committee, not comprised of experts, sent a notice to the applicant dated 02.04.2026 and the applicant also replied dated 04.04.2026. The ICC conducted the enquiry violating the Principles of Natural Justice and submitted its report, thereby totally disregarding the interests of the applicant.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

4. Grounds for Relief with Legal Provisions: The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted several grounds to get the relief, which are summarized as below:

(i) The Enquiry proceedings were not conducted as per the principles of natural justice. No opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was given. The applicant was also not allowed to produce any defence witnesses. The Committee was not properly constituted. It did not have subject matter experts as required under the Act and the judgements of the Vishaka case. No person of his cadre was made member of the Committtee. The very constitution of the Committee and proceedings conducted were in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment Act of 2013.

(ii) The recommendations of the ICC are yet to be forwarded to Disciplinary Authority. The Committee is totally biased against the applicant. The punishment referred to in the recommendations is the withholding of increment and for that reason, the applicant cannot be transferred all the way from Bangalore to Rishikesh. There is no post of Ear Mould Technician or any equivalent post at Rishikesh. The applicant being a Technical person cannot be transferred all the way where there is no post in existence.

(iii) The applicant submitted a detailed representation to the respondents giving grounds for his retention at Mysore. There is a post nearby Mysore where the applicant can be accommodated. However, the same has not been considered. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

5. Reply The learned counsel for the Respondents has filed the reply.

(i) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, AIISH, is a central autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. AIISH, Mysore has many Outreach Services Centres (OSC). The activities of AIISH are part of the National Programmes on Prevention and Control of Deafness (NPPCD), Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK) etc., The Outreach Service Centres are manned by Audiologists/ Speech Language Pathologists and Speech and Hearing Technicians. The qualification for Speech and Hearing Technician is a Diploma in Hearing Aid and Ear Mold Technology (DHAEMT)/ Diploma in Hearing Language Sciences (DHLS).

(ii) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the applicant was appointed to the post of Ear Mould Technician on 07.03.2016 at AIISH, Mysore. He holds a Diploma in DHAEMT and had his initial posting at AIISH Outreach Service Centre (OSC) – Sub Division Hospital, Sagara Taluk Hospital, Shivamogga, Sagara. Thereafter, he was transferred from OSC Sagara to AIISH, Mysore, where he has been working since 8th March 2024. While the applicant was working at AIISH, Mysore, a complaint was given to the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on 12th February, 2026 against him by a lady employee. In her complaint, she alleged that the applicant had been sending disturbing messages to her and had allegedly been stalking her since May, 2025. The ICC enquired into the matter and submitted KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

its Completion Report, dated 06.05.2026, in which ICC recommended transfer of the applicant and also a minor penalty.

(iii) The learned counsel for the respondents avers that the transfer has been effected on administrative grounds and in the interest of the Institute, having due regard to the mandate and activities of the Institute in pursuance of the NPPCD, RBSK and also to ensure a safe and congenial working environment for women employees, consistent with the objectives of the POSH Act, 2013. The transfer order is therefore legal, justified, bona fide, and passed in the larger public and administrative interests and is not actuated by any mala fide intention.

(iv) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the applicant's contention that the Internal Complaints Committee was not duly constituted is incorrect. He avers that the present Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in October, 2023 by the Competent Authority of the Institute, in accordance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the applicable POSH Guidelines. The said Committee has been entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with all complaints and activities relating to the ICC from time to time.

(v) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that although, the applicant, denied the allegations in his written reply to the complaint, during his appearance before the ICC on 24.02.2026, he admitted that the messages in question had indeed been sent by him but claimed that they were mistakenly KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

sent to the lady complainant. The entire enquiry proceedings were audio/video recorded, and the recordings are available with the Institute.

(vi) Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant that Principles of Natural Justice were not followed during the conduct of enquiry, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the ICC conducted the proceedings strictly as per POSH Act, 2013. Delineating the sequence of events, the learned counsel for the respondents states that on receipt of the complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted separate hearings of the complainant and the respondent (Mr. Girisha N.S.) in the first and second sittings. Thereafter, to facilitate an amicable resolution, both parties were called to appear jointly before the Committee. However, as the applicant was not willing to tender an apology, and both parties expressed desire to conduct a detailed enquiry in accordance with the applicable rules, the same was carried out. At no stage of the enquiry, was the applicant denied a fair opportunity of hearing or treated in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice. The enquiry proceedings were conducted with due fairness and transparency, and the entire proceedings were video recorded.

(vii) The learned counsel for the respondents also refutes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not permitted to produce witnesses in his defence. He submits that the applicant was served a notice on 02.04.2026 for submission of any counter statements. The statement of defence witness Mr. Shivakumar, was duly recorded. The enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

principles of natural justice, which is evident from the copy of the Minutes of the said proceedings cited at Annexure R-3.

(viii) The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the minor penalty imposed upon the applicant was not arbitrary but was imposed strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee, following the completion of the enquiry. The disciplinary action has been taken by the Competent Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules].

(ix) Defending the action of the Director to transfer the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the transfer was effected on administrative grounds and in the interest of the Institute, with due regard to the need to ensure a safe and congenial working environment for women employees, consistent with the objectives of the POSH Act, 2013. He further points out that the terms and conditions of his appointment expressly provide that the applicant is liable to be transferred to any place in India in the interest of the Institute. He states that the transfer was necessitated solely on account of administrative requirements and the availability of a suitable vacancy. In addition to its academic and clinical functions, AIISH provides healthcare services to persons with disabilities. Deployment of AIISH staff, wherever essential, is a mandatory requirement in the interest of public service.

(x) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in keeping with the Principles of Natural Justice, a copy of the Completion Report of the Enquiry KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Proceedings, which inter alia contains the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee, was duly provided to the applicant directing him to show cause why the recommendations of the Committee should not be enforced against him.

(xi) The learned counsel for the respondents asserts that the contention of the applicant that the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) ought to have been forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate action is totally misconceived and a mis-representation. He points out that since the Director, AIISH, is the competent Disciplinary Authority, the question of forwarding the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee to any other authority does not arise. The recommendations of the ICC were duly considered and acted upon by the Director, who is the Competent Authority. Hence, the allegations of bias are totally baseless.

(xii) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Director of AIISH is both the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority for the applicant, who is a Group C employee. As per Rule 7 of AIISH, "He shall be in charge of the administration of the Institute. He shall allocate duties to officers and employees of the Institute and shall exercise such supervision and executive control as many be necessary subject to the rules and regulations and these bye- laws".

(xiii) A vacant post of Speech and Hearing Technician is available at the AIISH Outreach Service Centre (OSC), AIIMS, Rishikesh, against which the applicant has been transferred. The duties attached to the said post are KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

commensurate with his technical qualifications, experience, and the nature of his appointment.

(xiv) The learned counsel for the respondents also points out that the applicant was initially appointed and posted at the AIISH Outreach Service Centre, Sagara, where he discharged duties of exactly same technical nature for approximately three years prior to his transfer to AIISH, Mysore. Hence, the applicant's contention that no suitable technical post is available at Rishikesh is factually incorrect.

(xv) The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), after conducting a detailed enquiry, recommended that the continued posting of Mr. Girisha N.S. at AIISH, Mysore, may adversely affect the complainant’s sense of safety and security at the workplace. Taking into consideration the recommendations of the ICC and the statutory obligation of the Institute to provide a safe working environment for women employees and research scholars, the competent authority considered it appropriate to transfer Mr. Girisha N.S. in the larger administrative interest. Justifying the transfer, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the lady complainant is pursuing her Ph.D. programme at AIISH, Mysore, under the guidance of a faculty member of the Institute. Her continued presence at AIISH is necessary for the completion of her doctoral programme. Hence, for ensuring a safe and conducive working environment, the Competent Authority decided to transfer the applicant instead of disturbing the academic programme of the complainant. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(xvi) The learned counsel for the respondents concludes by stating that on the date of issuance of the transfer order, there was clear requirement of Technical position against the vacancy of OSC, AIIMS, Rishikesh corresponding to the applicant's technical cadre and qualification of that of Speech and Hearing Technician at the AIISH Outreach Service Centre (OSC), AIIMS, Rishikesh. Hence, the applicant was transferred to the said post purely on administrative grounds and in the public interest. Accordingly, the OA is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.

6. Rejoinder

(i) In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant, has challenged the order of transfer / posting the applicant to Rishikesh, as there is no sanctioned post of Earmold Technician there to which the applicant was originally appointed. He recounts that the Applicant was appointed by the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH) and is a permanent employee of the said institute. Since the Applicant has been recruited specifically as an Earmold Technician, he cannot be posted to Rishikesh unless and until there is a sanctioned post of Earmold Technician available at that location.

(ii) The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that a person can only be transferred from one sanctioned post to another sanctioned post, and cannot be transferred in the absolute absence of a post. He points out that neither a sanctioned post is in existence within the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing at that location, nor within the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh. He states that the post stated to be available at Outreach KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Centre, Rishikesh is a post of Speech and Hearing Technician for which qualification required is Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech. The Applicant does not have such qualification. The post the Applicant is holding is EMT, for which the qualification is Diploma in Hearing Aid and Ear Mould Technology, which is a totally different qualification and the post now sought to be transferred is a temporary contract post of different qualification, scale and pay. The Respondents have intentionally not produced the order of sanction of post at Rishikesh.

(iii) The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire order of transfer is clearly penal in nature. The contention of the applicant that there is no post of Earmold Technician at the Rishikesh Outreach Services Center is clearly established. Since the respondents have failed to file any document, rules, or notification to demonstrate the existence of a sanctioned post at AIIMS Rishikesh where the applicant is directed to perform his duties, the mere fact that he will be allotted ‘similar duties’ cannot be a valid or legal ground to transfer him.

(iv) The learned counsel for the applicant further argues that the applicant has already submitted a detailed reply to the ICC report furnished to him. However, no formal action has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority till date. The Disciplinary Authority is mandated to act strictly in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, which entails the formal issuance of Articles of Charges and conduct of a regular inquiry. The report of the Internal Complaints Committee only forms the basis for initiating a formal inquiry, which is yet to be commenced by issuing Articles of Charges under the CCS (CCA) Rules. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Hence, in the absence of any Articles of Charges, the respondents' contention that the Applicant has been transferred on the basis of ICC report is legally unsustainable.

(v) The learned counsel for the applicant avers that the respondents' contention that the duties to be allotted to the Applicant at the Outreach Service Center at AIIMS Rishikesh would be similar to the ones performed by him at Mysore is misleading. He argues that, the Applicant is being posted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), which is a totally separate, independent, and distinct autonomous organization. He states that the Applicant's conditions of service are directly affected since he is a permanent employee of the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH). Posting an employee from one autonomous institution to another independent autonomous institution amounts to a 'deputation to foreign service'. Such an order cannot be legally passed without obtaining the explicit prior consent of the employee concerned. In the absence of such consent, the transfer is a forced deputation from AIISH to AIIMS, which are two independent autonomous organizations. This clearly amounts to an arbitrary and unlawful change in the Conditions of service.

7. Additional Reply

(i) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant holds a Diploma in DHAEMT and has served in a similar role at OSC, Sagara previously for eight years from 07.03.2016 to 07.03.2024. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(ii) AIISH Mysore and AIIMS Rishikesh have a Memorandum of Understanding for running the Outreach Service Centres (New Born Screening Centre), where in the roles and responsibilities of both the institutions are detailed. The contention of the applicant that the qualification required for Speech and Hearing Technician is only Diploma in Hearing. Language and Speech (DHLS) and not a Diploma in Hearing Aid and Ear Mould Technology(DHA&ET) is totally denied. The essential Qualification for the post of Speech and Hearing technician is either Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech (DHLS) or Diploma in Hearing Aid & Ear Mould Technology (DHA&ET).

(iii) The Office Order issued by AIISH, Mysore dated 30.06.2026 vide ANNEXURE R6, clearly spells out the duties and responsibilities of the applicant on his transfer to the Outreach centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh. The contention of the applicant that no regular employee has ever been posted to Outreach centre except the applicant is totally false and strongly denied. AIISH, Mysore has earlier transferred (relocated) many staff in pursuance of its MoU with its Outside Centres across India and the learned counsel for the respondents has furnished a few names. The applicant himself was posted at the AIISH Outreach Service Centre (OSC) at Sub-Division Hospital, Shivamogga, Sagara for eight years from 07.03.2016 to 07.03.2024. The duties, nature of work and responsibilities of the applicant are one and the same, both at OSC Sagara and OSC at AIIMS, Rishikesh. There has been no case of arbitrariness and discrimination as alleged by the applicant.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

8. Analysis and Conclusion

(1) I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondents. I have also carefully gone through all the documents which were brought on record by the respective Counsels including the judgements of the Higher Courts.

It would be useful to have a look at the relevant clauses of the POSH Act and Rules, the documents and records pertaining to the applicant, the report of the Internal Complaints Committee & action taken thereupon, and the Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and other courts cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents regarding the issue of transfer and postings to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Each of the arguments/averments of the learned counsel for the applicant will be examined in the context of the documents and records furnished to the Bench. They are now discussed as below:

(i) The learned counsel for the applicant states that the Conduct of enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee violated the Principles of Natural Justice and the very constitution of ICC was against the provision of the POSH Act. In this regard, it would be useful to have a look at the Constitution of ICC (Annexure R-1) and the relevant portions of the Report of ICC dated 04.06.2026 cited as Annexure A-7.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Constitution of ICC dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure R-1)

“ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSURU – 570006 No.SH/Dir/Gen.85/2023-24 Dated: 06.10.2023 NOTE Sub: Internal Complaints Committee to prevent Sexual Harassment– reg. The undersigned has been pleased to constitute the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for the prevention of sexual harassment at AIISH. The Committee plays a vital role in ensuring a safe and respectful work environment for all our employees and students. It is imperative that we maintain a workplace free from any form of sexual harassment and discrimination. This committee includes:

1. Dr. M.S Vasantha Lakshmi

Chairperson Associate Professor in Biostatistics Email: vasanthalakshmi@aiishmysore.in Mob: 9886252546

2. Dr. R Rajasudhakar

Member Associate Professor in Speech Sciences Email: rajasudhakar@aiishmysore.in Mob: 9886342654

3. Dr. Jadhav S Jayasankar Rao

Member Registrar Email: jadhavjsrao@aiishmysore.in Mob: 7795696916

4. Dr. Irfana M

Member Assistant Professor in Speech Sciences Email: irfana@aiishmysore.in Mob: 9400112980

5. Ms. M.N Sumana

External Member Advocate Mob: 9448177117

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Report of ICC dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure A-7)

“………………. Observations of the Committee: In view of the pleadings, statements, materials placed on record, and the proceedings conducted by the Committee, the Committee records the following observations: …………….. The Committee finds no material on record suggesting any discernible ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the respondent. The parties do not appear to be in competition for the same post or service advantage, and the record does not indicate that the respondent exercised academic, promotional, or service control over the complainant. In such circumstances, the absence of any apparent motive for false implication is a relevant factor while appreciating the bona fides of the complaint. Upon an overall assessment of the material presently on record, the Committee is of the considered view that the complainant's allegations are not vague, exaggerated, or unsupported in material particulars. While every allegation may not stand proved with equal strength, the core allegations relating to unsolicited personal messages, repeated unwanted presence, following, staring, and conduct causing humiliation and insecurity are substantially corroborated by documentary material, witness accounts, and the contradictions noted in the respondent's version. Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that the record discloses a sustained pattern of unwelcome conduct on the part of the respondent towards the complainant, requiring determination under the applicable provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the relevant institutional rules. Issue No. III What recommendations? Final Recommendations and Preventive Measures KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Subject to the committee’s final findings on the evidence, the following recommendations are being made: Issue No. I and Issue No. II are answered in the affirmative. The actions of the respondent are viewed under Section 2 (n) and Section 3, Sub-section (2), (iv) of "The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013" [SHWW(PPR) Act 2013]. The same has been covered under Rule 3- C of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Updated). With reference to Section 13, Sub-section (3), point (i) of SHWW(PPR) Act 2013, the committee recommends the following disciplinary action against the respondent as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) 1965]:

1. Withholding of increments of respondent's pay [Section 11 (iv) Minor penalties].

2. Further to help her feel comfortable and lessen her emotional distress/ mental trauma, the committee recommends transfer of the respondent to any other centres outside Mysuru, till the end of complainant's research terure.

The committee also recommends that the institution ensure immediate measures for the safety and non-retaliation protection of the complainant, including avoiding unnecessary work-related contact, maintaining distance in the workplace, and preventing any direct or indirect pressure upon her by any person outside the inquiry process. The committee recommends to preserve all related documents, witness statements, and recordings as part of the institutional record.

Conclusion

The ICC has conducted a thorough, impartial investigation spanning six meetings and five witness statements, comprehensively documenting all proceedings, testimonies, and evidence related to the allegations of stalking and harassment. All proceedings, messages, timelines, and testimonies archived for reference. This completion report follows the established format and summarizes case, with recommendations.”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Section 13 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 states as follows: “13…..

(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.

(3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be-

(i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; …………….

4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him.”

A bare perusal of the above extracts of the documents clearly indicate that the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in October 2023 strictly as per the provisions of the POSH Act. It is also seen that the Internal Complaints Committee had conducted enquiry in consonance with the laid down procedure and there has been no violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Section 13 (4) of the Act states that the employer is expected to act upon the recommendations within 60 days. It is seen that the report of the ICC was received on 04.06.2026 in which the ICC had specifically recommended the transfer of the applicant. Hence, the action of the respondents of issuing the KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Transfer Order of the applicant on 15.06.2026 is strictly in consonance with the above cited provision of the Act.

(ii) The learned counsel for the applicant asserts that the transfer of the applicant to AIISH is not against a sanctioned post. He can be transferred from one sanctioned post to another sanctioned post only. The applicant has been posted against a contractual post, of different qualification, scale, and pay, which is against the rules. In this regard, he has placed reliance on OM dated 04.01.2024 of Department of Expenditure and two judgements of the higher courts. The relevant extracts of the same, as furnished are as follows: The Hon’ble Apex Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. reported in (AIR 1974 SC 555) in Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972, dated 23.11.1973 has held thus: “……………….

8. The petitioner's contentions were these. First, the petitioner is appointed to a post or transferred to a post which is not validly created. The post of Officer on Special Duty is said to be not a post carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Second, under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 no member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III unless the State Government concerned in respect of posts under its control or the Central Government in respect of posts under its control, as the case may be, make a declaration that the said post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule. It is, therefore, said that the petitioner who is a Cadre post holder, viz., holding the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-scheduled post without a declaration that the non-scheduled post is equal in status and responsibilities to a scheduled post. Third, the petitioner is posted to an office which is inferior in status and office to that of the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the order is a hostile KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16. Fourth, the creation of the post as well as the appointment and transfer of the petitioner to the post is mala fide. ……………….

30. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there should be a declaration in writing. The purpose of the declaration that the post is equivalent in status and responsibility to Cadre post specified in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules is to ensure that members of the Cadre are not taken to posts beneath their status and responsibility. These measures are intended to preserve respectability and responsibility of the Cadre officers. The declaration is not one of mere form. It is of substance. A declaration in writing is desirable. The absence of a declaration will not be an impediment in ascertaining the equivalent status and responsibility. Similarly the presence of a declaration may not be conclusive if the declaration is a mere cloak. The facts and circumstances will be looked into in order to find out whether there is in real substance equality in status and responsibility. …………………..

81. We now turn to the first ground of challenge which alleges contravention of the second proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. So far as the second proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 is concerned, we do not think it has any application. That proviso merely confers limited authority on the State Government to make temporary addition to the Cadre for a period not exceeding the limit therein specified. The strength and com-position of the Cadre can be determined only by the Central Government under Rule 4(1) and the Central Government alone can review it triennially or at any other intermediate time under Rule 4(2). The State Government cannot add to the Cadre a different category of post than that already existing in the Cadre, nor can it make any permanent addition to the number of posts of a particular category in the Cadre, for to do so would mean, in the first case, alteration in the composition of the Cadre, and in the second, alteration in the strength of the Cadre, both of which would be impermissible to the State Government. But the State Government can, by virtue of the relaxation granted by the second proviso, make temporary addition to the Cadre provided the post added carries duties or responsibilities of a like nature to a KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Cadre post. This would mean, as pointed out by the Government of India in its decision recorded at 4.1 at page 741 of the All Indian Services Manual (Second Edition): "The exercise of this power by the State Government with reference to a post involves an objective assessment of the nature of the duties and responsibilities attached to that post in comparison to those attached to a Cadre post. Thus posts cannot be added temporarily to the Cadre unless such posts already exist in the Cadre". The State of Tamil Nadu could not, therefore, add the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty under the second proviso, as these posts did not exist in the Cadre as constituted by the Central Government. They were new categories of posts created by the State Government. The second proviso to Rule 4(2) has, therefore, no application and the challenge based on it must fail. 82……….This Rule is intended to provide a safeguard for the protection of a member of the Indian Administrative Service. Sub-rule

(1) enacts that no member of the Indian Administrative Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III, or in other words, to a non-Cadre post unless the Government makes a declaration that such non-Cadre post is "equivalent in status and responsibility" to a post specified in the said Schedule, i. e., to a Cadre post. If the State Government wants to appoint a member of the Indian Administrative Service to a non-Cadre post created by it, it cannot do so unless it makes a declaration setting out which is the Cadre post to which such non-Cadre post is equivalent in status and responsibility……..The Government would ordinarily be the best judge to evaluate and compare the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to different posts with a view to determining whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility and when the Government has declared equivalence after proper application of mind to the relevant factors, the Court would be most reluctant to venture into the uncharted and unfamiliar field of administration and examine the correctness of the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. But where it appears to the Court that the declaration of equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-Cadre post or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties of the two posts are so dis-similar that no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent in status and responsibility or the declaration of KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

equivalence is mala fide or in colourable exercise of power or it is a cloak for displacing a member of the Indian Administrative Service from a Cadre post which he is occupying, the Court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil servant……… 83……….The State Government cannot artificially create equivalence by saying that a particular non-Cadre post, whatever be the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to it, shall be in the rank or grade of any Cadre post it likes. The State Government has to apply its mind and make an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties and determine which is the Cadre post to which such non-Cadre post can be regarded as equivalent in status and responsibility and then only it can make a declaration of equivalence. This exercise does not seem to have been gone through by the State Government when it made the Order dated April 7, 1971 sanctioning the creation of the post of Deputy Chairman and appointing the petitioner to that post. This becomes abundantly clear if we look at the subsequent orders. As we have already pointed out above, the post of Deputy Chairman first created came to an end on April 13, 1972. Thereafter there was no post of Deputy Chairman till June 6, 1972 when it was created once again by the Order dated June 6, 1972. Strangely enough this Order, un-like the earlier Order dated April 7, 1971, did not even mention that the post of Deputy Chairman was in the grade or rank of Chief Secretary. It merely prescribed the pay which shall attach to the post of Deputy Chairman. There was admittedly no declaration in it equating the post of Deputy Chairman to that of Chief Secretary…….. ……………

88. Secondly, with the vast multitudinous activities in which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialised experience. It is always a difficult problem for the Government to find suitable officers for such specialised posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialised posts and the choice with the Government is very limited and this choice becomes all the more difficult, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibilities, do not carry wide executive powers and officers may not, therefore, generally be willing to be transferred to those posts. The Government has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

keeping in view the larger interests of the administration. When, in exercise of this choice, the Government transfers an officer from one post to another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new post does not give him the same amplitude of powers which he had while holding the old post. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer is made on account of the exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference of a junior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to attack under Articles 14 and 16. ……………….. 89……………The fact that sales tax accounts for a very large segment of the revenues of the State and it runs into about 120 crores of rupees does not necessarily make the post of Officer on Special Duty equal in status and responsibility to that of the Chief Secretary. What has to be seen for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts. Merely giving the salary of one post to the other does not make for equivalence. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the thesis that the post of Officer on Special Duty was equal in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary as claimed by the respondents. We entertain serious doubts about it. But equally it is not possible for us to hold it established on the material on record that this post was inferior in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary, though prima facie it does appear to be so. We cannot, therefore, say that the petitioner was arbitrarily or unfairly treated or that equality was denied to him when he was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary and in his place Sabanayagam, his junior, was promoted and confirmed. The challenge based on Articles 14 and 16 must therefore fail.

90. We may now turn to the ground of challenge based on mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner set out in the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path of the second respondent and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising acts and notings and contended that the second respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary……….. The transfer of the petitioner was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly invalid. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

91………. It is not within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry……….. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus animus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary.

92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility………. 93………. These and a few other circumstances do create suspicion but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and, as pointed out above, proof needed here is high degree of proof. We cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in up-holding the place of mala fides has been placed before us in the present case. We must, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner as well.

94. We accordingly dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.”

Order of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 dated 09.03.2010 “(2) The petitioner - Assistant Professor has challenged the order dated 25.1.2010 which in terms does not direct his transfer from the office of Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Nagpur, to the A.H. & Dairy Akola, but merely directs him "to work physically" at A. H. & Dairy Akola, until further orders. By the said order one Shri Motghare - respondent no.5 Assistant Professor of Veterinary Science borne on the establishment of Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Nagpur, is likewise not transferred from Nagpur to A.H. & Dairy Akola, but is directed exclusively "to physically work" under the Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Nagpur. 3] The respondent - Panjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth seems to have resorted to this peculiar manoeuvre since admittedly there is no post KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

of Assistant Professor (Veterinary Science) at Akola. In fact since there is no post, it is clear that no employee can be transferred to a non-existent post. Peculiarly, the order shows that Shri Motghare who is being transferred from Akola to Nagpur now has always been receiving his pay and allowances from the College at Nagpur. We are informed that even after the impugned order sending petitioner to Akola, his pay and allowances will be continued to be drawn at Nagpur. 4] Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we hold that the petitioner can not be transferred to a non-existent post in Akola and continued to be paid from Nagpur. We however, make it clear that this does not mean that P.K.V. can not direct any of its employee holding the post of Assistant Professor at Nagpur to work at Akola on circuit. It is very clear that P.K.V. is entitled to get the sanctioned posts at Akola or even transfer the existing posts of Assistant Professor (Veterinary Science) from Nagpur to Akola, whereupon a suitable person can be posted to that post. The impugned order is thus quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms.”

Annexure A-14 OM dated 04.01.2024

“F No. 7(1)/E.Coord-I/2017(Part.III) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure North Block, New Delhi Dated 4th January, 2024

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Compendium of instructions for Creation, Revival, Continuation, Conversion, Transfer, Up-gradation, Down-gradation and Abolition of posts in Autonomous Bodies under Central Government. …………………………….

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

7. Transfer of Posts:

7.1 A post sanctioned for a specific purpose shall not be diverted for another purpose at the same or a different station.

7.2 In case there is any necessity for transfer of post(s) due to transfer of functions for which the post is created, or the specific function ceases to exist, then in such cases the Administrative Ministry/Department shall submit a proposal along with detailed justification routed through their IFD and with the approval of Administrative Secretary, to the Department of Expenditure.

7.3 The Authority competent to approve transfer of post(s) shall be as below: Level of post Approving Authority All Posts Department of Expenditure

……………..”

Analysis : Perusal of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., shows that the matter primarily pertained to interpretation and implementation of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The matter hinged upon appointment of a Chief Secretary rank officer to a post / specified in Schedule III of the Rules OR declaration of a post equivalent to status and responsibility of a post specified in the said Schedule; and contravention of Provision 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The applicant had also challenged his transfer citing Rule 9 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 which mandates that no member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III. A non cadre post KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

has to be declared to be equivalent to status and responsibility to a post as specified in the said Schedule. Thus, it is seen that the judgement in this particular case pertained to perceived violation of the specific policy / Rules of the GoI, viz, IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954. It relates to the equivalence between Cadre and Non Cadre posts, a situation specific to All India Services. No such equivalence in terms of Rules is cited in the case of the applicant here. Hence, the facts and circumstances are very different in E.P. Royappa from the case at hand. It is further seen from the judgement that the accusation of malafide on behalf of the respondents, was not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the applicant had produced detailed chronological sequence of events, which perhaps hinted at arbitrary and mala fide intention on the part of the Government of Tamil Nadu and victimisation of the applicant, the final conclusion of the Supreme Court was as follows: “…………………. 91………. It is not within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry……….. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus animus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary.

92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility………. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

93………. These and a few other circumstances do create suspicion but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and, as pointed out above, proof needed here is high degree of proof. We cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in up-holding the place of mala fides has been placed before us in the present case. We must, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner as well.

94. We accordingly dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the petition of the applicant on the above stated grounds. In contrast, in the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate malafide on the part of the respondents in carrying out the transfer of the applicant. In fact, as stated above, the transfer of the applicant was strictly in consonance with the relevant provision of the POSH Act. Furthermore, while in the case of E.P. Royappa, the applicant had contended violation of Rule 4 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, and Rule 9 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, the learned counsel for applicant in this case has not been able to cite even one specific clause of any Act, OM or departmental Rule which has been violated. It is further seen that the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 dated 09.03.2010 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, is also not beneficial to the cause of the applicant. The facts and circumstances in this case are considerably different from that of the applicant. In the Nagpur case, the applicant was merely directed to work physically at Animal Husbandry and Dairy Akola, while he would have continued to draw his Pay and allowance from the College of Nagpur. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court while stating that the petitioner cannot be transferred to a non-existent post in Akola and to be paid from Nagpur, qualified KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

his observations by making it clear that the respondents could direct any of the employees to work at Akola on circuit. Apart from the fact that this judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai ( Nagpur Bench ) pertains to Maharashtra and hence is not strictly applicable to Karnataka, the Judgement does not take away the powers of the respondents to carry out transfer, though it does insist upon having a ‘sanctioned post’ at the place of work. This aspect is discussed later at length.

(iii) Contractual nature of the post at OSC of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh: The learned counsel for the applicant has sought to further buttress his arguments by citing the advertisements/notifications for appointment on contractual basis. He has stated that the two are different organisations and therefore this should be considered a ‘Deputation’ for which consent of the employee is necessary. The relevant portions of the two Advertisements are as follows: Notification for calling Applications for post in AIISH (Annexure RJ-1) “ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSORE – 570006 ADVERTISEMENT No.03/2023 Dated: March 21, 2023 AIISH, Mysore invites applications for the following post to be filled on contract basis at the Institute as detailed below: Pos t Cod e Name of the post Place of postings (DHLS/NBS/OSC/Depa rtment at AIISH) No of pos ts DHLS/NBS/ OSC Age (Upp er Age limit)

Consolida ted salary

Speech & Hearing AIIMS, Rishikesh pos t OSC Up to years Rs. 22,000/- per month and no KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Technici an other allowance are admissibl e

…………………. For the post code 15 to 45: Speech & Hearing Technician – 01 post each on various DHLS/NBS/OSC centres of AIISH: Essential Qualification Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech (DHLS) or Diploma in Hearing Aid & Ear Mould Technology (DHA & ET) or its equivalent.

Advertisement dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure RJ-2)

“ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSORE – 570006 ADVERTISEMENT No.14/2025 Dated: August 21, 2025 AIISH, Mysore invites applications for Speech & Hearing Technician posts to be filled on contractual basis at the Institute as detailed below: Post code Name of the post No. of post Place of Posting

Speech & Hearing Technician

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh

……….. Essential Qualification: Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech (DHLS) or Diploma in Hearing aid & Ear Mould Technology (DHA & ET) or its equivalent. ……………….”

It is evident that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that AIISH Mysore and AIISH, AIIMS Rishikesh are different organisations and the transfer should be treated as deputation is debunked by the very advertisements and notifications cited as RJ-1 and RJ-2 above. These KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

advertisements, as seen from above are issued by ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSORE (AIISH, Mysore) dated 21.03.2023 and 21.08.2025 are for contractual appointments for large number of affiliated institutes which include AIIMS Bhopal, AIIMS Rajasthan, AIIMS Rishikesh and similar other institutes which are part of the MoU cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. If AIISH (Mysore) and AIIMS were not part of a contractual agreement/MoU, it stands to common sense that AIISH (Mysore) would not have issued advertisements and would not be carrying out recruitment/selection of eligible individuals for these Institutes. The very fact that these Advertisements having been issued by AIISH, Mysore which also conducted selection/recruitment for places of postings at DHLS, NBS, OSC, Department of AIISH at places like Bhopal, Ranchi, Patna, Indore, Rishikesh etc. clearly indicate that all these units/centres/outreach service centres are bound together by a common MoU / Agreement. It is nowhere stated or argued that just because an employee has been posted or adjusted against a post of contractual nature, there will be dimunition of his scale, pay, level or that his tenure there will not be counted for seniority etc. Furthermore, these Advertisements / Notifications have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the applicant. It would be useful to have a look at the essential qualification required for the post to which the applicant has been transferred to: “Essential Qualification: Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech (DHLS) or Diploma in Hearing aid & Ear Mould Technology (DHA & ET) or its equivalent.”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

From the above, it is very clear, that the applicant who is having qualification of DHAEMT is eminently suitable for the post advertised for / cited supra.

Regarding the contractual nature of the appointment, at AIISH, Rishikesh, which the learned counsel for the applicant had cited to indicate change in conditions of service, it would be useful to refer to the judgements in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors and The Union of India & Ors. vs. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag. In these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and High Court of Calcutta respectively, expanding upon the judgement on regularization of contractual employees in the case of Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] had put Sanctioned Posts and Sanctioned Functions at par or at the same level or pedestal. The relevant portions of these judgements are as follows: Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors., [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024] dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 states: “……………….. 20………However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 1 SCR 1230], it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee……”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

The Union of India & Ors. vs. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag in High Court of Calcutta in MAT/70/2026 in IA No. CAN/1/2026, CAN/2/2026, dated 28.04.2026 states: “……………..

131. The law, as it stands now, in the light of above discussions summarized as follows :-

(i) Regularisation, per se, is a not a fundamental right, Courts cannot issue blanket writs of mandamus to the Executive to regularise all casual/contractual employees

(ii) As a general proposition governing employment, backdoor entries are discouraged, particularly in public service, and the State and its instrumentalities are supposed to adopt fair, transparent, and inclusive adhering to the rules framed by them, if any, in matters of employment;

(iii) However, the cliché ‘backdoor entry’ cannot by wielded by the State as a shield to mask perpetual temporary engagement of a workforce to discharge sanctioned functions of perennial nature which are integral and essential to the functioning of the concerned Department/instrumentality of the State; ………………….

159. For the sake of clarity, the revised Clause 2 of the 2023 Scheme shall read as follows: "2. The Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors who fulfill the following criteria are eligible for regularization under this Scheme:- ………………. Provided that the term "irregular appointment" in sub- clause (b) above shall include employees:

(i) who possess the prescribed minimum qualification

(ii) whose appointment shall be against “sanctioned posts” or “sanctioned functions” ……………..”

The underlying current is that if in a government job, ‘sanctioned functions’ are being performed by even a contractual employee, it becomes equivalent to discharge of duties against a sanctioned post, if the same is carried out over a KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

long period of time, of course, subject to certain conditions. It is seen in the present case, that the applicant has been performing the sanctioned functions at OSC Sagara and is required to perform the same set of functions at his new place of posting at OSC of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh. Furthermore, it is very clear and it is not contested anywhere, that the applicant will continue to get the same scale of pay, level etc. at Rishikesh and his tenure there will also count towards seniority and all other benefits as applicable to all other government employees of AIISH, Mysore. In the above cited judgements, the benefit of regularization was given to contractual employees as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave judicial imprimatur to the premise that if ‘Sanctioned Functions’ are being performed in a Government organization, then the concerned employees, even if they are contractual employees, should be considered to be working against ‘Sanctioned posts’. As a logical extension of this premise, even if it is accepted that there is no sanctioned post at OSC of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh, the very fact that the applicant had been performing similar functions at OSC Sagara for a very long period of time and is required to perform the same duties at Rishikesh, it can be safely presumed that he is working against sanctioned post. Hence, the question of having a sanctioned post or otherwise, is of little or no relevance here.

Thus, it is obvious that the shift of the applicant is just a transfer and is as per the contractual MoU between AIIMS and AIISH, which has also been carried out earlier for several individuals. I also tend to agree with the averment of the learned counsel for the respondents that respondents have the right to carry out transfers on administrative grounds and the Courts have very limited KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

powers to interfere in such matters, as reiterated in several judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which he has placed on record and which are extracted as below:

(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, held as:- "6. An order of transfer is incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute……...

7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.

8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the Constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority).”

(ii) In case of Rajendra Singh and others Versus State of UP & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178, it was held as:- "8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of an appointment but also implicit as essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55], SCC p. 406, para 7).”

[Emphasis supplied)

(iii) In case of Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as:- "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders. [Emphasis supplied]

(iv) In case of Union of India Versus Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC, it was held:- "The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for the Supreme Court to direct one way or the other. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."

It is also seen that the charter of duties and responsibilities, to be performed by the applicant at OSC of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh are exactly the same which the applicant had been performing at OSC, Sagara. It is seen that there is a contractual agreement between AIISH and AIIMS, under which they are mandated to perform certain duties and the applicant is required to act accordingly in his new assignment.

Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents on similarity of duties and responsibilities, it is useful to have a look at certain KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

documents, including APARs of the applicant, some of which are produced as below:

AIISH Notification dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure A-12)

“ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE – 570 006 1 Organisation and Function 1.2 (i) Power and duties of its officers and employees (administrative, financial and judicial) [Section 4(1)(b)(ii)] ………………… SI No. Designation Duties Assigned & Responsibilities

Earmold Technician Guiding and training the students for appropriate ear mold impression taking and preparation of the molds. Training the students and assisting in preparation of ear plugs and swimmers ear plugs. Supervision of students and preparation of ear molds in Ear molds section. Guiding and training the students for appropriate ear mold impression taking and preparation of the molds. Training the students and assisting in preparation of ear plugs and swimmers ear plugs. Monthly statistics of Ear molds Section. Purchase and maintenance of consumable and non- consumable materials required preparation of ear molds

…………………………….. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF EARMOULD TECHNICIAN SI. No.

Particulars

7. Education and other qualification required for direct recruits Essential Diploma in Hearing, Language and Speech (DHLS) or Diploma in Hearing Aid & Earmould Technology (DHA & ET) or its equivalent

Summary of statement of work of Mr. N.S. Girisha, Ear Mould Technician based on the Annual Performance Report # Duties and Responsibilities of Mr. N.S.Girisha at AIISH Centre at AIIMS, Rishikesh as mentioned in AIISH OM dated 30.06.26 (Document R6) Duties and Responsibilities of Mr. N.S.Girisha at AIISH Centre at Taluk Hospital, Sagara Duties and Responsibiliti es of Mr. N.S.Girisha at AIISH, Mysuru

-

-

-

-

. Assist the Audiologist and SLP during diagnostic assessments, hearing tests and therapy sessions, as and when required. pag e 9 (3,4 ) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Take ear mould impressions as prescribed by the Audiologist, dispatch the impressions to AIISH for fabrication and assist in fitting and verification of ear moulds under the guidance of the Audiologist. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Perform basic hearing aid maintenance and troubleshooting and report unresolved issues to the Audiologist/SLP for further management pag e 8 (5a ) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Maintain inventory records of hearing screening pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

consumables, ear mould materials, hearing aid accessories and outreach equipment

. Ensure routine cleaning, safe handling and basic maintenance of equipment used in hearing screening, hearing aid services and outreach activities, and promptly report any malfunction to the Audiologist/SLP and the Coordinator pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Assist in organising and scheduling orientation programmes, awareness campaigns and educational activities for the public, healthcare professionals, parents and other stakeholders pag e 9 (6c, 10c ) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Coordinate and assist in organising hearing screening camps, outreach programmes and community-based hearing healthcare activities pag e 9 (6b, 7a to d, 10d ) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page page

. Assist in maintaining records relating to outreach activities, referrals and programme outcomes pag e 9

pag e 13, pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page

Newborn Hearing Screening:

. Assist the Audiologist and/or SLP in conducting newborn hearing screening procedures as per established protocols and under their supervision pag e 9 (6, pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page statis tical repor t of Ear Moul d Secti on page statis tical repor t of Ear Moul d Secti on

. Maintain proper documentation of screening results, referral details and parent counselling records pag e 8,

(1, pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

. Provide regular statistics and updates to the Audiologist/SLP regarding the pag e 9 (6a, 6d) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

number of babies screened, referred and followed up

. Coordinate with the Departments of Paediatrics and Neonatology within the hospital, as well as nearby hospitals, along with the Audiologist/SLPs of the Centre, to facilitate timely referral of newborns for hearing screening and follow-up services pag e 9

) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

. Maintain referral records and monitor the follow- up status of screened infants to minimise loss to follow-up pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

Follow-up and Appointment:

. Conduct telephonic follow-up with parents/caregivers of at-risk or referred infants for scheduling detailed assessments and facilitating intervention services, as advised by the Audiologist/SLP. pag e 9

a to 1s) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page page

(disp atch ear moul ds by post and maint ain ear moul d regist er)

page

(disp atch ear moul ds by post and maint ainin g ear moul d regist er)

. Schedule and coordinate appointments for detailed audiological evaluations in consultation with the Audiologist/SLP. pag e 9

c) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

. Schedule and coordinate appointments for speech-language therapy sessions in consultation with the Audiologist/SLP. pag e 9

) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

. Maintain systematic records of follow-up cases and therapy reports. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24, page

Counselling Support: KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

. Assist in providing follow-up services to babies and caregivers and/or parent counselling, as and when appropriate for early identification and intervention. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

Page

Ensu re the effect ive and smoo th runni ng of visio n scree ning

. Assist in providing/coordinati on parent education and awareness activities. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

Data Management and Documentation:

. Maintain and update the required data management using appropriate software. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page page

Prep arati on of repor ts for Ear moul d Secti on, regul ar monit oring of recor ds are dispa tched page

Prep aratio n of repor ts for Ear moul d Secti on, regul ar monit oring of recor ds are dispa tched

. Prepare monthly activity reports and other data as and when required. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

. Ensure that all reports are verified and approved by the Audiologist/SLP and the Coordinator before submission. pag e 9

e) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

. Maintain accurate and up-to-date records of all activities of the Centre. pag e 9

3,4) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

. Coordinate with other departments for any services provided by them and other clinical units. pag e 9

pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

. Provide any other duties as and when assigned by the Audiologist/SLP with the prior approval of the Head of the Centre. pag e 9 (6a to e) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

. Help the Centre and Audiologist to achieve the vision of AIISH and/or the concerned Centre from time to time. pag e 9

a to e) pag e pag e page pag e pag e page 24,2

page

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Office Order dated 30.06.2026

“ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING: MYSURU - 570 006 SH/PL/CF.16/2026-27 Dated: June 30, 2026 OFFICE ORDER Sub: Assignment of duties and responsibilities to Shri N. S. Girisha, Ear Mould Technician, at the Outreach Service Centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh – Reg. Ref:

1. Office

Order

No. SH/PL/CF.16/2026-27 dated 15.06.2026

2. Office Order No. SH/PL/CF.16/2026-27 dated 24.06.2026. In continuation of the Office Orders cited under references (1) and (2) above, the duties and responsibilities of Shri N. S. Girisha, Ear Mould Technician, on his transfer to the Outreach Service Centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh shall be as detailed in the Annexure enclosed to this Office Order. Shri N. S. Girisha shall discharge the duties assigned to him under the Overall Coordinator of OSC & Coordinator, Outreach Service Centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh and shall comply with the instructions issued by the Institute from time to time. Further, Shri N. S. Girisha is advised to strictly adhere to the instructions in the office order cited at ref (2) above and submit a compliance report regarding his reporting at Outreach Service Centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh through the Coordinator, AIIMS, Rishikesh.

Sd/- Director Encl.: Annexure (Duties and Responsibilities of Shri N. S. Girisha, Ear Mould Technician) To: Mr.N.S.Girisha Ear Mould Technician Copy to:

1. HOD - Dept. of Audiology.

2. Overall OSC Coordinator, AIISH, Mysore.

3. Executive Director & CEO, AIIMS, Rishikesh.

4. Coordinator: AIIMS, Rishikesh.

5. Establishment / Personnel section.

6. Accounts section.

7. Personal file of the officials concerned.

8. Director’s secretariat.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Duties and Responsibilities of Shri N. S. Girisha, Ear Mould Technician I. Responsibilities:

1. Assist the Audiologist and SLP during diagnostic assessments, hearing tests and therapy sessions, as and when required.

2. Take ear mould impressions as prescribed by the Audiologist, dispatch the impressions to AIISH for fabrication and assist in fitting and verification of ear moulds under the guidance of the Audiologist.

3. Perform basic hearing aid maintenance and troubleshooting and report unresolved issues to the Audiologist/SLP for further management.

4. Maintain inventory records of hearing screening consumables, ear mould materials, hearing aid accessories and outreach equipment.

5. Ensure routine cleaning, safe handling and basic maintenance of equipment used in hearing screening, hearing aid services and outreach activities, and promptly report any malfunction to the Audiologist/SLP and the Coordinator.

6. Assist in organising and scheduling orientation programmes, awareness campaigns and educational activities for the public, healthcare professionals, parents and other stakeholders.

7. Coordinate and assist in organising hearing screening camps, outreach programmes and community-based hearing healthcare activities.

8. Assist in maintaining records relating to outreach activities, referrals and programme outcomes.

II. Newborn Hearing Screening:

9. Assist the Audiologist and/or SLP in conducting newborn hearing screening procedures as per established protocols and under their supervision.

10. Maintain proper documentation of screening results, referral details and parent counselling records.

11. Provide regular statistics and updates to the Audiologist/SLP regarding the number of babies screened, referred and followed up.

12. Coordinate with the Departments of Paediatrics and Neonatology within the hospital, as well as nearby hospitals, along with the Audiologist/SLPs of the Centre, to facilitate timely referral of newborns for hearing screening and follow- up services.

13. Maintain referral records and monitor the follow-up status of screened infants to minimise loss to follow-up.

III. Follow-up and Appointment:

14. Conduct telephonic follow-up with parents/caregivers of at-risk or referred infants for scheduling detailed assessments and facilitating intervention services, as advised by the Audiologist/SLP.

15. Schedule and coordinate appointments for detailed audiological evaluations in consultation with the Audiologist/SLP.

16. Schedule and coordinate appointments for speech-language therapy sessions in consultation with the Audiologist/SLP.

17. Maintain systematic records of follow-up cases and therapy reports.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

IV. Counselling Support:

18. Provide basic counselling to parents and caregivers regarding screening results, follow-up procedures and the importance of early identification and intervention.

19. Assist the Audiologist/SLP in coordinating parent education and awareness activities. V. Data Management and Documentation:

20. Perform data entry, compilation and basic data management using SPSS software.

21. Prepare and compile weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports of the Centre.

22. Ensure that all reports are verified and approved by the Audiologist/SLP and the Coordinator before submission.

23. Maintain accurate, complete and up-to-date records of all activities of the Centre.

24. Maintain confidentiality of patient records and data in accordance with institutional policies and guidelines.

25. Perform any other duties assigned by the Audiologist/SLP with the prior approval of the Coordinator.

26. Undertake any additional responsibilities assigned by the Director, Coordinator or any other competent authority of AIISH and/or the concerned Centre from time to time.

Sd/- Director”

APAR From 2016 to 2017 “ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSORE-570006 FORM OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (Group C – Scientific & Technical Staff) Report for the year 1st April 2016 – 31st March 2017 SECTION I BASIC INFORMATION (to be filled be the concerned Administrative Section) Employee Number: 1226

Name of the Officer Mr. N S Girisha

Designation/ Post held Ear Mould Technician

Scale of Pay & Basic Pay as on 31.03.2016 Rs. 5200-20200-Grade Pay Rs. 2800 Rs. 8560 + 2800

Date of Birth 04.04.1978

Educational Qualifications Diploma in Hearing Aid & Ear mould technology

4. List of official work assigned to you during the year

1) NBS data Entry

(a) NBS weekly reports data Entry & maintenance KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(b) NBS monthly reports, Data Entry & maintenance

(c) NBS Annual reports, Data Entry & maintenance

2) Entry of OSC & OPD case reports

(a) OSC & OPD case reports, data entry & maintenance (b) OSC & OPD monthly reports, data entry & maintenance

3) Maintenance of office file

(a) Bills file

(b) Official correspondence

(c) Camp file

(d) NBS Data

(e) OPD case history file

(f) Orientation programme file

4) Maintenance of Registers

(a) OPD

(b) Equipments & Stock

(c) Hearing Aid Issue

(d) Speech therapy

(e) Calibration

(f) Follow up & referral

5) Maintenance the official correspondence letters

6) Assisting in collecting of NBS Demography Details (a) Assisting & involved in organizing SP & HG camps at Sagara taluk (b) Assisting in organizing orientation program to PHC doctors, nurse, Anganwadi workers, Asha workers, Social workers, School teachers

(c) Assisting the office work like weekly reports, monthly reports & Annual reports preparation

7) Attended Screening camps

(a) Attended Screening camp conducted by SSA Sagara Taluk (b) Attended public Screening camps conducted by NGO's at Sagara Taluk

(c) Attended private school screening camp (d) Attended Hearing Impaired (ID) card Issued camp conducted by State Govt.

8) To counselling the Hearing Aid beneficiaries & parents for care & maintenance of Hearing Aid & minor repair (b) Orienting Ear mould maintenance

9) Taking of photo's of orientation programmes & Screening camps.

10) Other duties

(a) Enquiring about & collecting the contact numbers of Taluk PHC's, Anganwadi, grampanchayat member (b) Enquiring & Collecting address & contact numbers of primary & High School from BEO office, Sangareddy Taluk

(c) Visiting the Hearing Impaired School, near by taluk and district Orient the our Institute OSC service activities along with Audiologist & STP.

(d) Visiting the grampanchayath, school, & PHC's for camp arrangements

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

APAR From 2018 to 2019 “ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH & HEARING, MYSORE-570006 FORM OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (Group C – Scientific & Technical Staff) Report for the year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 SECTION I BASIC INFORMATION (to be filled be the concerned Administrative Section)

Name of the officer Sri. Girisha N S

Designation/Post held Ear Mould Technician

………..

1. Self Appraisal

1. Provide the details of the work/ task completed during the latest period

a. Clinical / Practical ➢ NBS data entry for weekly & Monthly report ➢ OSC OPD Case data entry for weekly & Monthly reports ➢ Distribution of body level Hearing Aids under ADIP scheme and also counseling the beneficiary Care and maintains of hearing aid ➢ Carrying out the follow up cases referred during the prime screening by re evaluation and also phone follow up. ➢ Assisting the collecting of demography details ➢ Basic trouble shooting of Ear mould and analog and digital hearing aids (Body level, BTE, Hearing aids) ➢ Assisting the Provided appropriate data about the statics of cases visited the outreach Service centre (Audiology and Speech cases) and also the New Born hearing screening statistics in the centre to AIISH thus contributed to the compilation of overall data at AIISH and the research conducted there

b. Public Education / Outreach Activities: ➢ Conducted about 20 Speech and hearing camps at hospitals, Schools, Anganwadi and other various locations at the taluk of sagara like kagodu PHC, Sirivanthe, Kuguve, Talagupa PHC Gallipura School, bykodu, sulalli Schools NGO Organized camp. ➢ Conducted School about 10 orientation programs regarding prevention and early identification of communication disorders for taluk health officer, phc doctors, nurses, ASHA workers anganwadi workers, Social workers, teachers, students and public thus creating awareness regarding Speech and hearing disorders and their management. ➢ Taking of photos of orientation programs and speech & hearing screening camp

c. Administrative Activities: ➢ Preparations of NBS Monthly reports, weekly reports New born screening reports, Camps & Orientations conducting letters Office related letters N. S. Girisha”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

The above is also fully corroborated by the Office Order dated 30.06.2026 which clearly indicates the duties and responsibilities of the applicant to be performed at AIIMS Rishikesh. They are exactly similar to the duties and responsibilities which the applicant has been performing while working at OSC Sagara. This is even further confirmed by the APARs furnished by the applicant himself from 2016 till 2026 as stated above, which indicate that the responsibilities which he has been shouldering and the duties which he has been performing are similar to the ones he is required to perform at AIIMS Rishikesh. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that transfer from Mysore to Rishikesh should be considered as deputation and that there is a change of conditions, pay service level are not tenable and are hence rejected.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that despite the fact that the applicant had submitted reply on 09.06.2026, in response to the Show Cause Notice issued to him dated 04.04.2026, on the ICC report, no further action has been taken by the authority, deserves cognizance. As stated supra, clause 13 (4) of the POSH Act mandates that action on the recommendations of the ICC report should be taken by the employer within 60 days. It is seen that the same has been only partially complied with by the respondents, to the extent of carrying out transfer.

It is felt that the respondents should have carried out objective assessment of the ICC report and the reply of the applicant to the Show Cause Notice within the stipulated period and taken necessary follow-up action. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Based on allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant by a lady employee, ICC was constituted by the respondents as per the provisions of the POSH ACT.

2. ⁠ The ICC had found after conduct of detailed enquiry, as per the laid down provisions, substantial evidence of sexual harassment and had concluded that the charges were proved to a great extent.

3. ⁠ Based on the above conclusions, the ICC had recommended:

(i) Transfer of the applicant

(ii) Imposition of minor penalty on the applicant

4. The ICC report was furnished to the applicant with a Show Cause Notice on 04.04.2026. The applicant had furnished reply to the Show Cause Notice on 09.06.2026.

5. ⁠The applicant has been transferred out to the Outreach Service Centre of AIISH at AIIMS, Rishikesh, on administrative grounds and in compliance with the recommendation of ICC, which is as per Clause 13 (4) of the POSH Act.

6. The charter of duties and responsibilities of the applicant at AIISH, Rishikesh are exactly the same which he had been earlier performing OSC, Sagara. Thus, he will be clearly performing ‘Sanctioned functions’ there, which he had been doing earlier for several years. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

7. ⁠All these Outreach Service Centres, and other units are bound by a common MoU / Agreement. There have been several instances of the employees of AIISH Mysore been transferred out to other outreach Centres and it is not the first time that it has been done.

8. There is nothing on record to indicate that the pay scale, nature of duties, terms and conditions of service etc to be performed by the applicant and the consequential service benefits are going to be diminished or going to be adversely impacted by the applicant joining and serving at OSC of AIISH, AIIMS Rishikesh.

9. ⁠There is no mala fide or arbitrariness established on the part of the respondents in carrying out the transfer of the applicant. Hence, the Tribunal cannot interfere in the matters of transfer.

10. ⁠However, there is definite delay on the part of the respondents to take action on the ICC report and upon the reply furnished by the applicant and the same needs to be carried out, expeditiously.

11. ⁠In view of the above, it is felt that the OA has no merits, except for regarding delay in disposal of the representation of the applicant on Show Cause Notice. Hence it is ordered, as follows:

(i) The OA is dismissed. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(ii) The Respondents are directed to take a decision on the ICC report and the reply of the applicant, there on, through a detailed Speaking Order, within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the Certified Copy of this judgement.

(iii) All MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(iv) ⁠No costs.

Sd/- (SANTOSH MEHRA)

MEMBER (A)

kr

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI