This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a CRPF officer from Chennai to a new station. It held that place and post are not legal rights; transfer is an administrative prerogative, and Standing Orders on rehabilitation do not entitle employees to refuse transfer for medical convenience.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2017
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.36145 of 2016 & M.P.No.31094 of 2016
S.Sreekanth
No.971131827, CT/DVR,
Quarter No.2186, Type-II,
B BLOCK-13, Group Centre,
CRPF Campus, Avadi,
Chennai-600 065. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector General of Police,
Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force,
Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills,
Gayathri Hills, Hyderbad-500 033.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,
Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
..Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear
the respondents from transferring the petitioner from the
present station, namely, Group Centre, Avadi pending medical
treatment for his ailment of diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic
retinopathy and varicocele being taken at Chennai and further
direct the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner by
providing him lighter duty as enlisted in the Central Reserve
Police Force standing order No.7/9 dated 06.05.1999.
For Petitioner :M/s.J.Lakshmi Narayanan For Respondents :Mr.N.Rajan Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to forbear the respondents from transferring him from the present station, namely, Group Centre, Avadi pending medical treatment for his ailment of diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic retinopathy and varicocele being taken at Chennai and further direct the respondents to rehabilitate him by providing lighter duty as enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force standing order No.7/9 dated 06.05.1999.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was suffering by diabetic retinopathy in his eyes and was undergoing treatment. He was categorized as Shape3, by the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during November, 2015, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent that he was transferred to 141 Battalion, stationed at Bhadrachalam (Telungana State). Hence, he has come forward with this Writ Petition for the aforementioned relief.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Standing Order No.4 of 2011 dated 27th July, 2011, stipulates about the rehabilitation of Force Personnel. ClassA provides that those who are disabled due to injuries sustained inaction against terrorist/anti-social elements/insurgents/naxalities/while maintaining law & order/internal security/undergoing training or any other bonafide duty. Further, the Board should examine a person with regard to his physical/mental capability, aptitude, job requirements etc., and after assessing the capability and health condition of the person, recommended to be whether he/she can be rehabilitated within the Force by assigning the jobs mentioned in para-7 & 8 of the Standing Order. Paragraph No.7 of the Standing Order stipulated for the job, based on the recommendation of the Board to be provided to the employees for rehabilitation.
4.On a perusal of the entire Standing Orders, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Order relating to rehabilitation of Force personnel is no where connected with the transfer of a personnel from one place to another place. Rehabilitation is one aspect and the transfer of a personnel is another aspect. Rehabilitation of the employee is very much required especially in Uniformed Services, when they suffer certain injuries during the course of performing their duties. But, transfer can never be the right and the place and post can never be claimed as a right.
5.Under the Standing Orders, rehabilitation can be claimed by the personnel when they sustained injuries during the course
of performing their duties. But, place and post can never be claimed as a matter of legal right. On rehabilitation or during the course of rehabilitation, if the Board finds that a particular persons is eligible to perform certain kind of light duty, then it is for the authorities to allot such light duties and post him in the appropriate place. In such circumstances, no personnel in the Uniformed Service can claim that either he should be posted in Chennai or any other place of his choice. In other words, choice of post or place are certainly not available to the public servants.
6.Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that as per the Standing Orders issued on rehabilitation of Force Personnel, the writ petitioner ought to have been accommodated only at Avadi, Chennai, deserves to be rejected. However, it is for the authorities to find out the nature of concession to be shown to a particular employee and accordingly, allot him any place or post. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the day-today administration so as to cause any chaos in the running of the administration in a peaceful manner. Further, Standing Order No.4/2011 dated 27th July, 2011, never prevents the authorities from transferring and posting a personnel from one place to another place. Contrarily, it provides a scheme for rehabilitation of Force personnel, which is to be undertaken by the competent authorities and this Court has not second opinion in this regard. All the personnel who sustained certain injuries on account of performing their duties has to be shown indulgence in providing rehabilitation in respect of the job responsibilities, but, not in respect of transfer and posting.
7.This being the view of this Court, all these Standing Orders are the subject matters to be considered only by the competent authorities and this Court may not be in a position to go into those factual aspects and decide whether the writ petitioner should be allowed to continue only in Avadi, Chennai or not. Furthermore, the writ petitioner is continuing in Avadi, Chennai, for about twelve years and further continuance is certainly not desirable, since he is working in a disciplined Uniformed Force, ie., CRPF.
8.Transfer of an employee is a prerogative power vested with the competent authority. It is for the competent authority to decide how and where to post the personnel for effective administration. The writ petitioner being an employee of an uniformed service has to abide by the administrative orders more specifically of transfers.
9.In respect of medical treatments, 141 Battalion, stationed at Bhadrachalam (Telungana State), this Court is easily able to presume that adequate medical facilities will be certainly
available in any Head Quarters of a State or in nearby places. Intervention in administrative transfers will not only cause inconvenience to the administration, but also amounts to preventing opportunity of other employees to come over to their native places. Administrative transfer policies are implemented in the interest of the department, more so, in the uniformed services, in order to maintain discipline and good conduct. Periodical transfers of uniformed personnel are highly essential. Keeping an uniformed personnel in one place may create issues relating to others' right to come over to their native places or any native States. CRPF being a disciplined force, has to maintain such a disciplined conduct throughout in the interest of our great nation. This apart, all the Standing Orders and the Guidelines in this regard are instructions to be followed and no Standing Order prohibits the competent authority from issuing administrative transfer and posting.
10.This Court is very much conscious that administrative transfers are allowed to be implemented in the interest of administration. It is not for the Courts to interfere or exercise the power of judicial review in the matter of transfers. Only on exceptional circumstances i.e. to say in the event of violation of any statutory rules, the power of judicial review can be exercised and not otherwise. Violation of certain guidelines /suggestions given in the form of circular or orders, which will not confer any legal right on the employees. In other words, the circulars and orders of the Government with regard to the guidelines issued for implementing transfers will not confer any right on the employees to claim on the basis of certain concessions shown in order to make the employees more accommodative and more effective for running the administration. Thus, it is for the competent authorities to consider all these aspects in respect of the personal grievances of the employees, while effecting transfers. Such being the legal principles on transfers, this Court is of the undoubted opinion that the administrative transfers cannot be challenged by way of writ petition and this Court has to be conscious, while exercising the judicial review against the orders of administrative transfers.
11.A Government servant holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and 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 right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities of the department. If Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its sub-ordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration,
which would not be conducive to public interest. The Courts need not overlook these aspects while interfering with the orders of transfers.
12.In the case on hand, the petitioner was posted to GC Avadi,Chennai on 28.01.2011 and by virtue of an interim order granted by this Court, the writ petitioner is continuously working in Avadi, Chennai, for about six years. In fact, it is not preferable to allow the writ petitioner to continue in Avadi, Chennai, furthermore. Thus, the writ petition and the grounds raised therein deserve no merit consideration.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rpa
To
1. The Inspector General of Police,
Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force,
Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills,
Gayathri Hills, Hyderbad-500 033.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,
Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
+1cc to Mr.N.Rajan, Advocate Sr. 56700
+1cc to M/S.J.Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate sr. 51152
W.P.No.36145 of 2016 GP(CO) VR(04/09/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant in a uniformed force has a legal right to claim a specific place of posting or refusal of transfer due to medical grounds.
Whether administrative transfer orders in uniformed services are subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction.
Whether Standing Orders regarding rehabilitation of injured personnel create a vested right to remain at a specific location.
S.Sreekanth
The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
