P RAJAPRATAP Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged a signal dated 6. 4. 2009 where under just within one year and two months of petitioner being posted at the GO's Bill section PAO, Director General CRPF, Delhi, has been transferred to Jammu and kashmir. The petitioner alleges the transfer to be mala-fide on account of his being a member of a Scheduled Caste. Petitioner alleges that respondent No. 3, shri N. P. N. Nair being a Brahmin and his immediate superior, has targeted him on account of caste bias. The petitioner further alleges that as per Standing order No. 2/2007, containing the transfer-posting policy, it is a requirement that a person posted at a place should not be posted out within four years. The petitioner claims that his previous posting was at Agartala, a hard station, for 2 years and 9 months and there was no reason to post him to Jammu and Kashmir, another hard station. To bring home the allegations of mala-fide the petitioner points out that the speed with which the file was processed to issue a transfer order to the petitioner is a self-serving evidence of the malice. It is pointed out that the note requiring petitioner to be transferred out was prepared by the JAD (GO) on 23. 3. 2009. It was approved by the next higher officer the same day and the very next day i. e. on 24. 3. 2009, the necessary approval was granted.

(2.) DURING arguments learned counsel for the appellant stated that although a transfer/posting of an employee is the prerogative of the employer, but where the order is issued mala-fide, as held in the decision reported as 2009 (1) SCC (Lands) 411 Somesh Tiwari vs. UOI and Ors. , a Court can certainly interfere exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS per the respondents the petitioner had always been extended a helping hand and evidenced by the fact that out of 22 years and 4 months service rendered by him, hard posting was only for 2 years and 6 months and for nearly 19 years the petitioner was posted at family stations shows that far from acting hostilely against the petitioner, he had been treated with compassion. It is pointed out in para 2 of the counter affidavit that on being posted in the GO's Branch Office, it came to the notice of his superiors that there were large scale deficiencies in the working of the petitioner.