Manipur High Court
Langjing As Si(Min) Having ... vs The Union Of India Represented ... on 2 November, 2022
1
SHAMUR Digitally
by
signed
AILATPA SHAMURAILATP
AM SUSHIL
M SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2022.11.04
SHARMA 15:03:57 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No. 800 of 2022
Shri Goutam Manna, aged about 52 years, H/O Smt. Kakali
Manna of Sinthee Road, PO & PS Cossipore, District-Kolkatta,
West Bengal-700050, at present posting at IG, M&N Sector
Langjing as Si(Min) having F/No.931520111.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Union of India represented through the Secretary
(Ministry of Home Affairs) North Block, Government of
India-110001.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New-Delhi-03.
3. The Inspector General of Police (Pers), Directorate
General, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
03.
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 1
2
4. The IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector, Group Centre
CRPF Langjing, Manipur-795113.
5. The DIGP,(ORG) Dte CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-03.
6. The IGP, Orissa, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar, District-
Khurda, Odisha-751011.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Roshan, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Boboy Potsangbam,C.G.S.C
Date of Reserved : 27.09.2022
Date of order : 02.11.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the
impugned transfer and posting order dated 21.7.2022 in respect of the
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 2
petitioner and the order dated 10.8.2022, as it was issued in violation of the
Standing Order No.03/2016 and in view of the judgments of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.589 of 2022 dated 9.8.2022 and W.P.(C) No.687 of 2022 dated
6.9.2022 and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to be posted
in any Kolkata or GC DPR, BBSR, SLG, AGT, JSR, CH BBSR, 106 RAF or
any Bn deployed at WB, Tripura, Jharkhand in view of Para No.7(h) (ii) read
with Para No.I (i) & 10 (d) of the Standing Order No.03/2016.
[2] Heard Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned C.G.S.C for the respondents.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated
21.7.2022, the petitioner was transferred and posted to IG-Orissa and the
petitioner was made to submit a list of total 28 choice of postings and IG-
Orissa was never given as a choice posting. None from amongst the
battalions/units given as choice posting was allotted, but the petitioner was
transferred and posted to IG-Orissa in violation of Standing Order
No.3/2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2022, the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 22.7.2022 and the same has been
rejected vide order dated 10.8.2022. On 10.8.2022, the petitioner also
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 3
submitted a representation to IG (Pers), New Delhi. Since no reply was
given, he made another representation on 8.9.2022 and the same has been
rejected by the DIG (Org) vide order dated 15.9.2022. Challenging the
impugned order dated 21.7.2022, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
[4] The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the
petitioner has given Composite Hospital Bubaneshwar and GC
Bhubaneshwar in his 4th and 6th choice while applying in SANTOS APP.
His desired location at CH Bhubaneshwar/GC Bhubaneshwar are located
in the same campus and is seen in the organisational setup paper where it
can be reflected by the addresses. It is stated that the petitioner had
requested for Bhubaneshwar and he has been transferred to
Bhubaneshwar.
[5] Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that transfer and posting of the ministerial staff,
including the petitioner are governed by the stipulations/guidelines as laid
down in the Standing Order No.03/2016 dated 29.12.2016. Though the
normal tenure of posting in Directorate will be 3 years, extension may be
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 4
given in exceptional cases to the officer whose services are considered
essential based on the recommendation of IGP of the Branch. In any case,
the total tenure at the Directorate should not be more than 5 years at a
stretch.
[6] The learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is
a resident of West Bengal, his posting in the State of Manipur, particularly
in the GC Imphal and the office of the IG M&N Sector is a hard area posting.
As per the stipulation laid down in the guideline No.4(a), the petitioner's
tenure is to be 2 years, but was extended by another 2 years in the office
of IG M&N Sector, thereby serving 4 years in the State of Manipur.
[7] The learned counsel further submitted that in the early part of
2022, the petitioner came to know that his name has been included for
Summer Chain Transfer 2022, as he had already completed 4 years of hard
area posting against the prescribed tenure of 2 years. He submits that
guideline No.7(h)(ii) laid down that officials posted in J&K, NE Region and
LWE are will be considered for one choice out of 5 choices subject to
administrative feasibility and tenure policy. However, officials completing
tenure in LWE area will be given due preference.
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 5
[8] The learned counsel added that the petitioner who has a
hardship score of 384.55 and was made to submit a list of 28 choices
through the SANTOS software. Surprisingly and much to the concentration,
the DIG (Org) Dte, CRPF issued the impugned transfer order dated
21.7.2022 whereby the petitioner along with 5 incumbents were transferred
and posted to different places of posting and the name of the petitioner
appeared at Serial No.4. Earlier the petitioner was made to submit a list of
total 28 choice postings and IG-Orissa was never given as a choice posting.
None from amongst the battallions given as choice posting was allotted, but
the petitioner was transferred and posted to IG-Orissa in violation of the
Standing Order 3/2016 without proper application of the mind.
[9] The learned counsel submitted that aggrieved by the transfer
and posting order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
22.7.2022 raising objection to the posting to the IG-Orissa, as it was not
within 28 choice posting submitted through the SAMBHAV App and for
posting the petitioner to any offices/units located at Kolkatta. By the order
dated 10.8.2022, the representation of the petitioner was rejected as devoid
of merits. On 10.8.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to the IG
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 6
(Pers) DC, CRPF, New Delhi to implore for posting to any offices/units
located at Kolkata. However, no reply was given till date. Again on
8.9.2022, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the DGP, CRPF,
New Delhi and by the order dated 15.9.2022, the said representation was
rejected.
[10] It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned transfer and posting order made through SAMBHAV App
are made in gross violation of the guidelines for transfer and posting. The
petitioner is entitled for one choice posting as per Para 7(h)(ii) of the
Standing Order. However, the respondents, in violation of the guidelines,
made the petitioner to submit 28 pre-determined choices through the
SAMBHAV App. The petitioner was transferred and posted to the IG-
Orissa, which was not within the 28 choices given to him, illegally and
arbitrarily in violation of the stipulations laid down in Para 7(h)(ii) of the
Standing Order.
[11] The learned counsel urged that normally transfers are effected
zone wise, then concerned zone decide for posting sector wise and then
sector decides for final unit/Bn postings. But in the case of the petitioner
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 7
this was not done and the petitioner was transferred and posted to IG-
Orissa through SAMBAV App directly in violation of Para No.7(b)(iii) of the
Standing Order. There are vacancy in the West Bengal Sector and that the
rights of the petitioner under the provisions of the Standing Order cannot
be forfeited by SANTOS guidelines. Thus, a prayer is made to set aside the
impugned transfer and posting order and to direct the respondents to allow
the petitioner to be posted in Kolkata or any Bn deployed at WB, Tripura,
Jharkhand.
[12] On the other hand, Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned C.G.S.C
for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has given Composite
Hospital Bhubaneshwar and GC Bhubaneshwar in his 4 th and 6th choice
while applying in SANTOS App. His desired location at CH
Bhubaneshwar/GCBhubaneshwar are located in the same campus. He
would submit that since the petitioner requested for Bhubaneshwar, he had
been transferred to Bhubaneswhar.
[13] The learned Standing Counsel further submitted there is no
violation in issuing the impugned transfer and posting order in respect of
the petitioner and only to avoid joining in the transferred place, the petitioner
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 8
has filed the present writ petition vexatiously. Thus, a prayer is made to
dismiss the writ petition.
[14] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
[15] The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred
and posted to IG-Orissa Sector, Bhubaneswar although it was not within
his 28 choices submitted through SAMBHAV App. His posting from M&N
Sector, HQr., Imphal to Orissa Sector is not according to his choice even
after completion of more than 4 years tenure at Imphal (Manipur, under
NEZ), the same is adverse with reference to Para 7(C) h (ii) of Standing
Order, wherein it has been stipulated that official posted in J&K NE Region
and LWE will be considered for one choice posting out of 5. It is stated that
the petitioner has not completed the prescribed zonal tenure of 18 years
and sector tenure of 10 years and the impugned order was issued without
proper application of mind.
[16] The petitioner was posted at GC, Imphal and the office of the
IG M&N Sector in the year 2018 and 2020 and has completed more than 4
years in hard area against the normal tenure of 2 years as laid down in Para
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 9
No.4(a) of the Standing Order. Since the petitioner has completed 2 years
tenure in the GC Imphal and the office of the IG M&N Hqr and has
completed totally 4 years in a hard area, his name was included in the
Summer Chain Transfer 2022.
[17] According to the petitioner, he is entitled for one choice
posting as per Para No.7 (h) (ii) of the Standing Order. However, the
respondents in violation of this guideline made the petitioner to submit 28
predetermined choices through the SAMBHAV App, but was transferred
and posted to IG-Orissa, which was not within the 28 choices given to the
petitioner. In support, the petitioner has failed to produce any materials. On
the other hand, in the affidavit to the writ petition filed, the respondents
stated that the 4th and 6th choice of the petitioner while applying in SANTOS
APP is Composite Hospital Bhubaneshwar and GC Bhubaneshwar and
those two located in the same campus.
[18] Para 7 C, (h) (i), (ii), (iii) of the Standing Order provides:
"7. TYPES OF TRANSFER.
C. Other Transfers.
h) Choice allotment/posting after hard area posting.
i) While forwarding request for transfer/choice postings etc. to
Directorate General, the officers/officials will submit their request
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 10
on the prescribed proforma (attached as Appendix-"A" with this
Standing Order) giving 5 choices spread over different cities
(NCR/twin cities will be treated as one city) and 2 or more
Sectors. Any request for specific posting to a particular
office/GC/Unit or any region sent to Dte. General will not be
entertained/accepted by the Directorate.
ii) Officials posted in J&K, NE Region and LWE area will be
considered for one choice out of 5 choices as above subject to
administrative feasibility and tenure policy. However, officials
completing tenure in LMW area will be give due preference.
iii) Requests for officers/officials posted in soft area will be
considered only subject to availability of vacancies and
administrative feasibility after adjustment of requests received
from officers/officials completing tenure in respective hard
areas."
[19] Thus, Para 7C (h)(ii) stipulates that officials posted in J&K, NE
Region and LWE area will be considered for one choice out of 5 choices
subject to administrative feasibility and tenure policy. In view of the
aforesaid clause, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot question the
impugned transfer and posting order, as the respondent authorities are very
much authorised to transfer the employees on administrative feasibility and
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 11
tenure policy. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had already completed
4 years of hard area posting against the prescribed tenure of 2 years in a
hard area as per the Standing Order. Since the petitioner had completed
4 years of hard area posting, he cannot now question the impugned transfer
and posting order.
[20] In paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
respondents, it has been as under:
"3. That as per the order dated 23/09/2022, the respondents herein
state that the current transfer to IG Orissa is located at Group Centre
at Bhubaneshwar. The petitioner has given Composite Hospital
Bhubaneshwar and GC Bhubaneshwar in his 4th and 6th choice while
applying in SANTOS APP. His desired location at CH
Bhubaneshwar/GC Bhubaneshwar are located in the same campus
and is seen in the organisational setup paper where it can be
reflected by the addresses. Furthermore, a satellite map of the
same is annexed to clarify the same issue. That the petitioner had
requested for Bhubaneshwar and he has been transferred to
Bhubaneshwar."
[21] Since the petitioner himself requested for Bhubaneshwar,
later on changing his mind, he cannot question the impugned transfer order
by stating that the impugned transfer and posting in respect of the petitioner
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 12
is in violation of Standing Order. When the petitioner has given
Bhubaneshwar as his 4th and 6th choice, he cannot plead that his transfer
to IG-Orissa is not within the 28 choice posting submitting through the
SAMBHAV App. Only for the purpose of filing the writ petition, the petitioner
has raised the said ground. In view of the above, this Court is of the view
that the representations of the petitioner has been duly considered and
passed orders by the respondent authorities.
[22] Transfer of an employee is an administrative prerogative
power vested with the competent authority. It is for the competent authority
to decide how and where to post the personnel for effective administration.
The petitioner, being an employee of uniformed service, has to abide by the
administrative orders, more specifically, of transfers.
[23] Intervention in administrative transfers will not only cause
inconvenience to the administration, but also amounts to preventing
opportunity of other employees to come over to their native places.
Administrative transfer policies are implemented in the interest of the
department, more so, in the uniformed services, in order to maintain
discipline and good conduct. Periodical transfers of uniformed personnel
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 13
are highly essential. Keeping uniformed personnel in one place may create
issues relating to others' right to come over to their native places or any
native States. Central Reserve Police Force, being a disciplined force, has
to maintain such a disciplined conduct throughout in the interest of our great
Nation. This apart, all the Standing Orders and the Guidelines in this regard
are instructions to be followed and no Standing Order prohibits the
competent authority from issuing administrative transfer and posting.
[24] This Court is very much conscious that administrative
transfers are allowed to be implemented in the interest of administration. It
is not for the Courts to interfere or exercise the power of judicial review in
the matter of transfers. Only on exceptional circumstances i.e. to say, in the
event of violation of any statutory rules, the power of judicial review can be
exercised and not otherwise. Violation of certain guidelines/instructions
given in the form of circulars or orders, will not confer any legal right on the
employees. In other words, the circulars and orders of the Government with
regard to the guidelines issued for implementing transfers will not confer
any right on the employees. Certain concessions are provided in order to
make the employees more accommodative and for effective functioning of
the administration. Thus, it is for the competent authorities to consider all
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 14
these aspects in respect of the personal grievances of the employees, while
effecting transfers. Such being the legal principles on transfers, this Court
is of the undoubted opinion that the administrative transfers or general
transfers cannot be challenged by way of writ petition and this Court has to
be conscious, while exercising the judicial review against the orders of
administrative transfers or general transfers.
[25] A Government servant holding a transferable post, has no
vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and 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 right. Even if a transfer
order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead, the affected party
should approach the higher authorities of the department.
[26] If Courts continue to interfere with the transfer orders issued
by the Government and its sub-ordinate authorities, there will be complete
chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest.
The Courts need not overlook these aspects while interfering with the
orders of transfers.
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 15
[27] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena v.
Union of India and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 583, has observed that
Government servant in the matter of transfer should first report/join for work
where he is transferred.
[28] In the instant case, after issuance of the impugned transfer
and posting order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 8.9.2022
to the DGP, DG, CRPF, New Delhi requesting him for posting at Kolkata
based offices/GC DPR/SLG/JSR/Ranchi/Agartala/106 RAF or any Bn
deployed at West Bengal/Tripura/Jharkand on the ground of his daughter
education. Upon consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the
DIG (Oranisation) has passed an order on 15.9.2022, rejecting the request
of the petitioner holding that transfer issue of the petitioner has been
examined on the basis of his previous posting particulars, transfer policy,
vacancy position, ground of request and other aspects etc. The said order
dated 15.9.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner. The non-
challenging of the order dated 15.9.2022 would clearly prove that the
petitioner has satisfied with the rejection of the representation dated
8.9.2022. Since the representation dated 8.9.2022 and orders passed
thereon are in relation to the impugned transfer order dated 21.7.2022 and
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 16
the representation dated 8.9.2022 was rejected by the DIG (Organisation),
the petitioner has no right to question the impugned transfer and posting
order. In the facts and circumstances, the orders of this Court passed in
W.P.(C) No.589 of 2022, dated 9.8.2022 W.P.(C) No.687 of 2022, dated
6.9.2022 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not
applicable to the instant case.
[29] The scope of interference by this Court in regard to members
of Armed Forces is far more limited and narrow. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned
transfer of the petitioner was made after considering the applicable
Standing Order as also other material documents. Therefore, there is no
merit in the writ petition and thus the same is liable to be dismissed.
[30] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022 Page 17
