The High Court held that police authorities must comply with government transfer policies. It set aside an order rejecting a transfer request due to two-year delay and vague rejection, directing submission of a fresh representation.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to submit fresh representation for consideration within reasonable period.
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 PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12017 of 2021
======================================================
Ravindra Kumar Singh Son of Sri Yogendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Daulatpur, P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Munger and also Resident of Malepur, P.S.-Malepur, District-Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Verma, Advocate Ms. Shail Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the order as contained in memo no.472 dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure- ‘8’) by which his request for his transfer from Police District Naugachhia to Police District Jamui has been rejected.
It is the case of the petitioner that his wife is posted as a Government Block Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Bahira (Barhat), Jamui since a long period and because Jamui is a super sensitive area owing to often attack of Naxalites, she is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12017 of 2021(2) dt.06-04-2023 2/4
facing hardship in living alone there.
It is his submission that the request of the petitioner for transfer was forwarded as back as on 26.07.2019 but it was considered after about one year nine months and then it has been rejected.
The petitioner has relied upon the policy of the State Government in the matter of postings on the spousal ground. Reference in this regard has been made to the order dated 6th October, 1967 and memo no.3906 dated 19.09.2011 as contained in Annexure- ‘1’ and ‘2’ to the writ application.
Learned counsel for the State submits that on the recommendation of the Central Establishment Committee, the case of the petitioner along with various other similarly situated persons were taken up for consideration and ultimately the request of the petitioner was rejected. There is, however, no response to the submission of the petitioner that his request for transfer was kept pending for about two years before rejecting it in one word “असवीकृत”.
In the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any specific reason for not abiding by the government’s policy on the transfer and posting, the respondents are obliged to abide by the policies
Patna High Court CWJC No.12017 of 2021(2) dt.06-04-2023 3/4
formulated by the government vide Annexure- ‘2’ to the writ application.
Learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the second line of Annexure- ‘8’ to submit that the representations are considered keeping in view the availability of the vacancies. It is submitted that whenever the vacancies would be available, if the petitioner applies for transfer his case would also be considered afresh.
This Court is of the considered view that a representation filed by the petitioner, if kept pending for about two years and then it is rejected in one word saying “असवीकृत”, it leads nowhere. Such vague words only make the second line of the order contained in Annexure- ‘8’ unmeaningful. The respondents should be bonafide in the matter of abiding by their policy decisions and the Central Establishment Committee which considers the cases of the transfer on certain grounds is obliged to convene and hold its meeting from time to time in such a manner that the representations are not left pending for years together and then it is rejected in vague words.
In such circumstance, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the present case, since almost two years have gone after the rejection of the representation of the petitioner, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12017 of 2021(2) dt.06-04-2023 4/4
view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the State, the petitioner may submit a fresh representation which the respondents will consider keeping in view the policy decisions and other relevant considerations within a reasonable period.
This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
arvind/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State and police authorities were obliged to abide by government policies regarding transfer and posting despite vacancy availability constraints.
Whether the delay of nearly two years in rejecting a transfer request and the use of vague rejection terms render the impugned order liable to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Kumar Singh
State of Bihar
Director General of Police, Bihar
Additional Director General of Police (Head Quarter), Bihar
Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Bihar
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
