IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.27651 of 2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN:
Sri. R. Gurumurthy S/o Sri. Ramappa .H, Aged about 58 years, Working as ASI/EXE, Having CISF No.854460374, Working at CISF Unit URSC (B), R/at B-21, Old Fire Quarters, 14th Cross, II Stage, HAL, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru – 08. …Petitioner (By Sri. Prashanth .H.S., Advocate) AND:
1. Union of India By the Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Deputy Inspector General CISF DOS Zone – I Headquarters, Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bengaluru – 560 094.
3. The Inspector General CISF DOS and DOE Headquarters, No.13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. …Respondents (By Sri. B. Pramod, CGC) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the posting order No.13/2019, 05.06.2019 issued by the R-2 herein vide Annexure-A and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 05.06.2019 passed by respondent No2, wherein, petitioner has been displaced from Bengaluru to VSSC, Thumba.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the circular dated 25.09.2017 relating to the guidelines for posting/transfer of CISF Personnel (NGOs – Constables, HCs, ASIs, SIs and Inspectors) in various sectors provides for effecting of transfer of CISF employees. He further submitted that before effecting transfer, respondent No.2 has violated the sub-Clause-B of Para 10 and (xi) of para 39, which reads as under:-
“10 B) All annual transfer orders shall normally be issued by 31st March and in any case, not later than 30th April of the year.
xi) Sector IsG and Plant/Zonal DIsG should ensure that under normal circumstances, CISF personnel should not be posted to the same unit more than once.”
3. In respect of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has rendered service in Thumba during the period from 2011 to 2014. Once again, posting him to Thumba is in violation of the aforesaid clause.
4. It is evident that respondent No.2 has violated the Clause (xi) of para 39 of the circular dated 25.09.2017. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Order of transfer dated 05.06.2019 is set-aside for violation of Sub-Clause (xi) of para 39 of the circular dated 25.09.2017.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM