Delhi High Court
Sudheer Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11526/2025 & CM APPL. 47170/2025
SUDHEER KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava,
Mr. Satyaarth Sinha and Ms. Khushi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPC for
UOI with Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv., Mr.
Ankur Yadav, GP with Mr. Ajay Pal, Law
Officer and Mr. Vinod, Legal Officer,
CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 08.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner is posted as Inspector (Ministerial) in the
Gazetted Officers' Entitlement Branch, Directorate General, CRPF,
New Delhi.
2. Vide order dated 11 January 2025, the petitioner's tenure at the
Gazetted Officers' Entitlement Cell1 was extended till 9 January 2026,
after approval of the competent authority.
"GOEC" hereinafter
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
3. During the aforesaid period of extension, an order was issued
on 9 April 2025, transferring as many as 33 officers/officials to
various other postings. The petitioner's name figures at Serial No. 24.
Column 5 of the transfer order is headed "Transfer/Allotted Type".
The transfer order makes it clear that, in respect of all the 33 officers
covered by the transfer order, the transfer is on administrative reasons.
In the last column, against the petitioner's name, under the head
"Remarks", the following has been entered:
"Official presently attached with GOS Entt. Cell Adm Branch, Dte.
Attachment extension if any granted to the Official is hereby
cancelled and he is stand relieved from attachment duty w.e.f
01/06/2025."
4. The petitioner represented against the aforesaid transfer order in
May 2025, seeking that he be transferred to one of the other Battalions
located in Bantalab, Pinjore, Jalandhar, Gwalior, Rampur or any other
Delhi-NCR based unit. He sought a personal audience, which was
rejected.
5. Thereafter, the following order dated 11 July 2025 was passed
(extracted to the extent it applies to the petitioner):
"ORDER
Following officials have taken Personal Audience of IG
(Pers) in connection with transfer / retention. Their cases have been
examined vis-a-vis their PPPs, Transfer Policy, Grounds of
Request, Vacancy Position as well as other administrative &
operational feasibility / constraints of the Force and orders of the
Competent authority are mentioned against each as under:-
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
Sl. Name, UNIT Request of Date Deciding Remarks
No. Rank, Force the Authority
No Officer
2 SUDHEER GC- Transfer 10/07/2025 IG Official is
KUMAR, AJM- to 06 (Pers)Dte presently
INSP MIN, 2 BN/16 attached
911530273 BN/51 with GOs
BN/63 Entt Section
BN/84 and under
BN/GC order of
BTB/GC transfer on
PJR/GC de-
JDR/GC attachment
GWL/GC to 20 BN.
RPR or His instant
any Delhi request
NCR considered
based but could
office(s)/ not be
Unit(s). acceded to
due to
administrati
-ve and
functional
requirement
of the Force.
Official may
please be
relieved
immediately
for new
place of
posting.
02. Reference :: Personal Audience of IG (Pers) dated
10/07/2025.
All concerned Unit/Office are directed to inform the above
personnel accordingly."
6. Thus, the petitioner's representation has been rejected with
reasons. It is stated that his request could not be considered owing to
administrative and functional requirements of the CRPF.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present writ
petition, seeking quashing of the order transferring him to Assam.
8. One of the contentions of the petitioner was that he had not got
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
an opportunity to provide 28 choices of postings on the
SAMBHAV/SANTOS App, which was usually provided to officers
who were intended to be transferred as per Circular dated 31 March
2022 issued by the Director General2, CRPF.
9. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned SPC for the respondents has
pointed out that the aforesaid circular applies only to Summer Chain
Transfers and that the petitioner was not a Summer Chain Transfer.
10. We find this submission of Mr. Sharma, to the effect that
Circular dated 31 March 2022 applies only to Summer Chain
Transfers, to be correct. We may, for ready reference, reproduce the
initial paras of the guidelines contained in the said circular, thus:
"Guidelines for SANTOS:-
(I) For Individual
"SANTOS" menu has been integrated with "Sambhav"
mobile application. Login into "Sambhav" with your User
ID/Password, if you are in transfer list. Following menu would be
available to you:-
(i) Hardship score
(ii) Eligible Units/Establishments
(iii) Ineligible Units/Establishments
(iv) Record choices
(v) View/Revise choices
After opening "SANTOS" menu in your mobile click on the
menu option. Check your hardship score on clicking sub menu
"See hardship Score". Check your hardship score and then click
on Sub menu "Eligible Units/Establishments" and check your
eligibility for transfer to Unit/establishments. Then click on
"Record Choice" sub-menu for filling up choices for SCT-2022.
"DG", hereinafter
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
Three options will appear for filling up choices:-
• Summer Chain-General
• Summer Chain- Special
• Summer Chain- Retention
Summer Chain General menu is common for all transferees
who are due for SCT. All have to compulsorily fill the
prescribed number of choices. For Summer Chain Special or
Summer Chain Retention, officials are suggested not to fill this
category in routine manner. Only exceptional and genuine cases
will be considered under these two categories."
11. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava's contention is that, at the time
when officers were being considered for Summer Chain Transfer, his
tenure in Delhi was extended and that, therefore, the app was not
made available to him.
12. That, in our view, is a pure administrative decision, with which
this Court cannot interfere. The issue of the officers whose tenure
should be extended and who should be transferred under the Summer
Chain Transfer Scheme is a matter of pure executive discretion and we
would be reluctant to interfere in such matters.
13. The fact remains that the petitioner's was not a case of Summer
Chain Transfer and that, therefore, the Circular dated 31 March 2022
of the DG, CRPF would not apply to the petitioner.
14. Mr. Bhargava further submits that the respondents, without due
justification, has curtailed his extended tenure midway and has
transferred him to Assam. He submits that it was for this reason that
he has filed a representation against the transfer.
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
15. The representation, as we have already noted, stands rejected. In
the rejection order, the respondent has clearly stated that the
petitioner's request could not be acceded to, as his transfer was
necessitated in view of administrative and functional requirements of
the Force. Beyond this, as we are dealing with a paramilitary Force,
we cannot insist on the respondents disclosing any reasons, especially
as the petitioner has not attributed any mala fides or other
administrative lapse to the respondents.
16. Mr. Bhargava is also characteristically candid in his submission
that there is no real instruction which proscribes curtailment of the
tenure of the petitioner once it was extended. He submits, however,
that any such curtailment has to be for genuine and valid reasons.
17. We agree with the submission. However, as the respondents
have stated that the tenure had to be curtailed and he had to be posted
to Assam because of administrative and functional requirements of the
Force, we regard these as sufficient reasons.
18. Besides, we find that the petitioner's is not an isolated case of
transfer. The impugned transfer order transfers as many as 33 officers.
It was obviously a bulk exercise, conducted in order to ensure
optimum performance of the Force, keeping in mind its administrative
requirements.
19. In the absence of any plea of mala fides or other serious
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
infirmity in the transfer of the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to
interfere.
20. We, accordingly, do not find this a case which warrants exercise
of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
21. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
22. However, this would not preclude the petitioner from
representing to the respondents, setting out any compelling
circumstances on the basis of which he may seek relief. In the event of
any such representation being made, the present order would not stand
in the way of a compassionate view being taken by the respondents -
of course, in accordance with law.
23. The petitioner seeks that he be granted three weeks' time to join
at the transferred place. The request is reasonable. Accordingly, the
petitioner is granted three weeks' time to join at the transferred place
of posting.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
AUGUST 8, 2025/gunn
W.P.(C) 11526/2025
