PARIMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the petitioners as raised in the present writ petition is against the order of transfer dated 19.2.1999 which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure 12 (page 71 of the paper book) issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, transferring both the petitioners on administrative grounds. In the said order a request was also made by the Divisional Security Commissioner seeking for according post facto approval to the aforesaid order of transfer from the Chief Security Commissioner. By the said order the petitioner No.1 was transferred from Ghaziabad to Muzaffarnagar whereas the petitioner No.2 was transferred from Ghaziabad to Tapri. The petitioners in the writ petition have also incidently challenged the orders dated 14.12.1998 and 22.12.1998 whereby the respondent No.6 was reinstated and de novo enquiry was ordered and also order dated 11.6.1998 whereby respondent No.5 was posted as Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF , New Delhi.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners while advancing her arguments on the challenge to the legality of "the aforesaid orders submitted that the aforesaid order of transfer was issued without the approval of the competent authority and that the said order was passed before expiry of the mandatory tenure attached to a particular post and therefore, the said order of transfer is illegal and invalid. It was also submitted by her that the posting of both the respondents 5 & 6 at the Prosecution Branch of Delhi Division who had recommended and passed the order of transfer against the petitioners were illegal and without Jurisdiction and consequently, they had no jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer in respect of the petitioners and therefore, the order is required to be set aside. The counsel further submitted that the order of transfer was actuated by malafide and therefore, the same is required to be set aside.

(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents however, submitted that according to Rule 90 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 the petitioners have an all India transfer liability, and since the aforesaid order of transfer was made in exercise of the aforesaid powers in the exigencies of service and for administrative reasons and to avoid local entanglements no grievance could be made by the petitioners as against the aforesaid order of transfer. He also submitted that in respect of the aforesaid order of transfer post facto approval was given by the Chief Security Commissioner and therefore, the said order was passed by the Competent Authority and the order cannot be said to be without Jurisdiction. He also submitted that the respondents 5 & 6 were given the orders of posting in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and therefore, they have Jurisdiction' to issue an order of transfer of the petitioners to which also post facto approval was given by the competent authority. It was submitted that the petitioners could not have challenged the posting orders of respondents 5 & 6 in the writ petition as the petitioners could not be stated to be aggrieved persons as against the said posting orders of the respondents No.5 and 6.