The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a CRPF personnel from Chennai to Jammu despite the petitioner's bullet injuries. It held that place of posting is not a vested right and courts cannot interfere with administrative transfers absent statutory violation.
The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 : 02.08.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.38699 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.33152 & 33153 of 2016
D.Rakesh Reddy .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Director of General,
CRPF, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. The Inspector General of Police,
Southern Sector CRPF,
Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills,
Near MLA/MPs Colony
Gayathri Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
3. The Commandant,
77 Bn, CRPF, Karaianchavadi,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. .. Respondents
Prayer: The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the transfer order dated 15.10.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.J.II.1/2016-77-EC-2 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from transferring the petitioner from 77 Bn, CRPF, Poonamallee and retain the petitioner in 77 Bn CRPF or transfer to other establishments of CRPF at Chennai/ Hyderabad/ Bangalore.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Gouri
For Respondents : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order of transfer dated 15.10.2016, transferring him from Poonamalle to Srinagar and thereafter from Srinagar to Jammu.
3. However, there is no dispute with regard to the bullet injuries sustained by the writ petitioner during the course of performing his duties and further there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of work applicable to Shape-III category (light duties). The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also emphasized that wherever the writ petitioner is posted, he will be allotted with Shape-III duties and responsibilities and he will not be posted to perform hard duties. He further contended that the writ petitioner was transferred to Jammu, which is a plain area and thus, the contention of the writ petitioner need not be considered. Further, the writ petitioner has completed his four years of tenure in Avadi, Chennai.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Standing Order No.4 of 2011 dated 27 th July, 2011, stipulates about the rehabilitation of Force Personnel. Class-A 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.
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.
8.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 Tamil Nadu or not. Furthermore, the writ petitioner is continuing in Avadi, Chennai, for about four years and further continuance is certainly not desirable, since he is working in a disciplined Uniformed Force, i.e. CRPF.
9.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.
12.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 /instructions given in the form of circular or orders, 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. Certain concessions are provided in order to make the employees more accommodative and for effective functioning of 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.
13.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. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cgi/sli
To
1. The Director of General,
CRPF, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. The Inspector General of Police,
Southern Sector CRPF,
Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills,
Near MLA/MPs Colony
Gayathri Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
3. The Commandant,
77 Bn, CRPF, Karaianchavadi,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.
+1 cc to M/s R.Gouri Advocate sr 55170
+1 cc to M/s.K.Raju Advocate sr 55172
W.P.No.38699 of 2016
ariv
aa31/08/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a uniformed service employee has a legal right to claim a specific place or post as a matter of transfer.
Whether judicial intervention is permissible in routine administrative transfer orders of uniformed forces.
Whether violation of executive instructions or guidelines confers a legal right on an employee to resist transfer.
D. Rakesh Reddy
The Director of General, CRPF, New Delhi
The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector CRPF, Hyderabad
The Commandant, 77 Bn, CRPF, Chennai
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
