Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/248/2021 on 12 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 248 of 2021
12TH JULY, 2021
Between:
Rajendra Kumar.
...Petitioner
and
Union of India and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, the learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Assistant
Solicitor General for the Union of India.
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
Mr. Rajendra Kumar, the petitioner, has
challenged the legality of the transfer order dated
24.06.2021, whereby the petitioner has been transferred
from Dehradun Sector Headquarter Center Reserve Police
Force, Dehradun to Western Sector Navi Mumbai.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on
18.11.1995 the petitioner was appointed as ASI, Ministerial
in Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Jalandhar,
Punjab. Subsequently, he was promoted on different posts.
By order dated 16.04.2020, the petitioner was transferred
from Group Center Reserve Police Force Kathgodam in
District Nainital to Dehradun Sector Headquarter Center
Reserve Police Force, Dehradun. In compliance of the
same, the petitioner joined his duties on 13.07.2020. By
order dated 25.01.2021, the petitioner has been promoted
on the post of Assistant Commander (Official Language),
and is posted at Directorate, Central Reserve Police Force.
According to the Standing Orders dated 29.12.2016, the
petitioner was supposed to have a tenure of three years at
the present place of posting. However, by the transfer
order dated 24.06.2021, the petitioner has been transferred
as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that according to the Standing Orders
dated 29.12.2016, the petitioner could not have been
transferred, as the petitioner had not completed his tenure
of three years. Secondly, even on an earlier occasion,
when the petitioner was promoted, he was not transferred
2
as he had not completed his tenure of three years.
Therefore, even presently the transfer order is an illegal
one; hence, deserves to be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and
perused the transfer order, and the Standing Orders dated
29.12.2016.
5. A bare perusal of the Standing Orders dated
29.12.2016 clearly reveals that Standing Order No. 7
speaks about three different types of transfers, namely
"summer chain transfers", "transfer on promotion", and
"other administrative transfers". Although, the learned
counsel claims that the Standing Orders dated 29.12.2016
are mandatory in nature, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly opined that Standing Orders
dealing with transfer are merely directory in nature, and not
mandatory in nature.
6. Moreover, a bare perusal of the Standing Orders
clearly reveals that Standing Order No. 19 clearly
empowers the respondent to transfer a person on
administrative grounds, even if the person has not
completed his tenure of three years. Therefore, the
3
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the transfer order is an illegal one, is unsustainable.
7. Even if the petitioner was not transferred on the
previous occasion after being promoted, the said position
will not create an estoppel against the respondents. For,
there is no estoppel against a statute. Therefore, the said
argument is clearly unacceptable.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not
find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby,
dismissed.
9. No order as to cost.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 12th JULY, 2021
Rahul
