This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent in No.T.IX.42/07-ADM.I dated 28.12.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to retain the petitioner in service at the office of the second respondent.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 28.12.2007 transferring him from G.C.Avadi to 12 Battalion. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the order of transfer has been passed in the middle of the academic year which is contrary to the Standing Order No.5/2003 dated 10.10.2003. In other words, according to the petitioner, the transfer order should be issued in the end of the academic year (i.e.) in the month of April. He would have no grouse on the order of transfer, if it is as per the Standing Order. Petitioner further states that he has two daughters studying in school and therefore, it is not possible to get admission in the middle of the academic year. Hence, the writ petition.
3. At the time of admission on 4.1.2008, an interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner and has been extended from time to time. Respondents counsel took notice on 4.1.2008 itself. Petitioner continues to enjoy the benefits of the interim order.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on 22.12.2008. In the counter-affidavit, it is contended that the petitioner is working as Ministerial staff in the Central Reserve Police Force. The competent authority has the right to transfer a person at any time on administrative grounds. There is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the transfer order.
5. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the order of transfer dated 28.12.2007 has been passed in violation of rule 2 of the Standing Order 5/2003 dated 10.10.2003 which reads as follows:-
"2.SCHEDULE OF TRANSFERS-
Summer chain transfers of Ministerial staff will be issued every year as under:-
a)By Directorate General By 15th March
b)By Sector IsGP By 31st March
c)By Range DIsGP By 15th April"
6. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose vs. - State of Bihar, reported in 1991(2) SCC 659 and Union of India vs. - S.L.Abbas reported in (1993)4 SCC 357 to state that unless there is a violation of any statutory rule and in the absence of any mala fides, the orders of transfer should not be interfered by the courts.
7. There is no right to be stationed in a particular place and post. Transfer is incidental to the service. In the present case, the Standing Order No.5/2003 has been issued on 10.10.2003 by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
8. As to the scope of the Standing Order and its implication with regard to transfer of staff was considered by this court in W.P.No.10696 of 2001 by order dated 7.8.2001. This court referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. - S.L.Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 held that the Standing Order has a binding force on the authorities exercising the power under the same. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the order of transfer dated 28.12.2007 is contrary to the Schedule of Transfers as set out in the Standing Order referred to above as it has been issued in the middle of the academic year. No special or proper reason has been assigned in the order of transfer. There is no reason given as to why there is a departure from Rule 2 of Standing Order No.5/2003 dated 10.10.2003. On this issue, this court concurs with the finding rendered in the earlier decision in W.P.No.10696 of 2001 dated 7.8.2001 (A.Nambirajan vs. - Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector CRPF Banjara Hills Hyderabad and another) cited supra. Even in the case of Shilpi Bose vs. - State of Bihar reported in 1991(2) SCC 659, it has been held that one of the grounds on which the court can interfere with the order of transfer is when the order of transfer is made contrary to any statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
9. In this case no mala fide is alleged. However, Standing Order No.5/2003 dated 10.10.2003 is binding on the respondents as the Standing Order 5/2003 dated 10.10.2003 has been issued under the seal and the authority of the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi who is competent to issue such direction or order. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is willing to join duty in any other place if he is relieved and transferred and sufficient time should be given to join the new place. Such undertaking is recorded. The order of transfer has been issued more than 22 months before and the petitioner has the benefit of stay. The reason for seeking stay of transfer does not exist any more.
10. In the result, the transfer order under challenge in the present writ petition is set aside. The respondents, however, are at liberty to transfer the petitioner as undertaken by him to any other appropriate place at their choice in accordance with Standing Order No.5/2003 dated 10.10.2003. No order as to costs. The Writ Petition is ordered as above.
ts To
1.The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2.The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai 65