Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Jagat Ram & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: August 16, 2016
Delivered on: April 03, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4215/2016
CT/GD JAGAT RAM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Virender Singh Kadian, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhay Prakash Sahay, Advocate.
Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the signal
order dated 22.3.2016, issued by the Director General, Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Signal Order No. T-IX-54-
2016-NS-EC-IV(SOZ) dated 03.05.2016, issued by the
Inspector General, Northern Sector, CRPF, whereby the
petitioners have been transferred to different Special
Operational Zones in Chhattisgarh.
=====================================================================
2. The order of transfer has been challenged on the ground that the
petitioners have been transferred prematurely on completion of
just five months at their present place of posting at Group
Centre, CRPF, Gurgaon and 122 Battalion at Delhi.
3. It is the case of the petitioners, that on completion of their
normal tenure of more than eight years in field areas at Jammu
and Kashmir, the petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 were transferred from
121 Battalion and 187 Battalion to Group Centre, CRPF,
Gurgaon, Haryana and the petitioner No.14 was transferred
from 187 Battalion to 122 Battalion at Delhi, vide order dated
13.11.2015 of the Inspector General, Northern Sector.
4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Bastar region of
Chhattisgarh, is amongst the most sensitive areas of India,
which faces internal security threats in the form of Left Wing
extremism and 27 CRPF Battalions are deployed in the said
region to fight Left Wing extremists or naxalites.
5. It is stated that the respondents face difficulties in rotation of
personnel posted in these 27 Battalions, as persons transferred
to these Battalions are reluctant to go due to high operational
commitments. It is further stated that none of the 27 Battalions
deployed in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, are under the
jurisdiction of the Inspector General, Northern Sector, CRPF.
As such, the respondent No.2, being the Directorate General,
=====================================================================
CRPF, having administrative jurisdiction over the force as a
whole, has taken over the responsibility of transferring
personnel to these 27 Battalions.
6. Since January, 2015, about 14661 personnel have been
transferred to the Bastar region and about 9500 persons who
have completed their tenure, have been transferred out of the
Bastar region.
7. It is further contended by the respondents that as per paragraph
15 of the Standing Order No.7/2015, the respondent No.2 might
issue any order of transfer overriding the transfer policy, i.e.,
Standing Order No.7/2015 due to operational, medical,
administrative or any other exigency.
8. The transfers are due to operational exigencies. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has rightly
argued that the respondent No.2 is superior in rank to the
respondent No.3 with wider administrative powers. The
impugned order dated 22.03.2016, does not suffer from any
legal infirmity.
9. It is stated that due to re-affiliation of units deployed in the
Bastar region, it had become difficult to rotate personnel out of
Chhattisgarh, as a result of which, personnel posted in units
deployed in Bastar region remained posted there for years,
much longer than their specific tenure. This is not an instance
=====================================================================
of a single transfer or a few stray transfers, 2036 personnel from
static offices and Battalions therefore, moved to the Bastar
region in public interest.
10. It is well settled that orders of transfer are not ordinarily
interfered with by the Court exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Shilpi Bose Vs.
State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, the Supreme
Court held:
"Courts should not interfere with a transfer order
which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders
are made in violation of any mandatory statutory
rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government
servant holding a transferable post has not vested
right to remain posted at one place or the other, 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 rights.
Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of
executive instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order
instead affected party should approach the higher
authorities in the Department."
11. In Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in AIR
1993 SC 2444, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for
the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the
order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is
=====================================================================
made in violation of any statutory provisions, the
Court cannot interfere with it."
".... Guideline however does not confer upon the
Government employee a legally enforceable right."
12. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri
Bhagwan and Anr. Reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 held that:
"Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an
outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to
be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting
any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot
interfere with such orders, as though they were the
appellate authorities susbstituting their own
decision for that of the management.
13. In Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227, the Supreme Court held:
"The scope of interference by courts in regard to
members of armed forces is far more limited and
narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide
when and where a member of the armed forces
should be posted. The Courts should be extremely
slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such
category of persons and unless an exceptionally
strong case is made out, no interference should be
made.
14. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over orders of
transfer. Orders of transfer cannot be interfered with even if the
=====================================================================
same are in violation of guidelines or executive instructions, in
the absence of malafides as held by the Supreme
Court in Shilpi Bose (supra). No case of malafides in issuance
of the order of transfer has been made out. We find that there
are no grounds made for interference with the order of transfer,
which is in administrative interest.
15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J
April 03, 2017
n
=====================================================================
