SREEKUMAR S. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Subedar Major (Ministerial) in Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Pallippuram. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P4 to the extent it orders transfer of the petitioner to Central Zone. The further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to retain the petitioner in the post of Subedar Major (Ministerial) in the present station itself till the completion of the permissible period of stay as per Ext. P7 guidelines for transfer. The main contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P4 order of transfer is violative of Ext. P7 transfer guidelines inasmuch as Ext. P7, under normal circumstances, permits a normal stay of 4 years to a transferee and that the petitioner stood transferred to the present station and joined there only on 27/12/2011 pursuant to Ext. P3. According to him, the request for cancellation of Ext. P4 transfer order ought not to have been rejected as per Ext. P6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has been in the service of the respondents for about 30 years and it is only subsequent to Ext. P3 that he got an opportunity to work in his native State. That apart, it is contended that even after granting him promotion the said order to the extent it pertained to the posting was modified as per Ext. P3 taking into account solely of the fact that he had no home station service up to that time. A counter - affidavit has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the respondents. It is admitted that normal tenure as per Ext. P7 is 4 years. However, the case of the respondents is that such matters are also dependent on the policy decisions taken from time to time. Earlier, certain complaints were received to the effect that certain officials are availing continuously static / soft posting for more than two tenures and thereby depriving opportunity to other needy / eligible persons to work in such places and on finding substance in the said complaint a policy decision was taken as is obvious from Exts. R1(a) and R1(b). It was decided to transfer out such officials in order to rationalise the rotation of the ministerial staff to provide equal opportunity to every official to avail posting of their choice during summer chain transfer 2013. In essence, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has been transferred out from the south zone as per the impugned order in view of such policy decision. It is contended that the petitioner has been working under the south zone for about 15 years. The particulars of the posting of the petitioner are given in a tabulated form in paragraph 8 of the counter - affidavit. Based on such particulars given thereunder it is contended by the respondents that out of the total service of 27 years and 9 months the petitioner had served in the harder area only for a short period of 4-6 years. The petitioner has been working in a static / peace area in the south zone. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 KHC 837 : AIR 1991 SC 532 : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 : 1991 Lab IC 360 , Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram, 1989 KHC 883 : AIR 1989 SC 1433 : 1989 (2) SCC 602 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 393 : 1989 (10) ATC 396 : 1989 Lab IC 1374 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. S. Kourav, 1995 KHC 823 : AIR 1995 SC 1056 : 1995 (3) SCC 270 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 666 : 1995 (29) ATC 553 : 1995 (2) LLJ 849 it is contended that the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Central Government Counsel.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4 order of transfer as also Ext. P6 by which his request for cancellation of Ext. P4 order was rejected. Though the petitioner has taken up the contention that Ext. P4 order is vitiated by mala fides no averments to establish the said allegation of mala fides have been made in the writ petition. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that a vague allegation of mala fides in the matter of transfer calls for no consideration. The identity of the person against whom the petitioner attributes mala fides is not discernible from the pleadings in this writ petition and even if it can be said that the person can be identified without such person in the array of parties such contentions cannot be gone into. In the said circumstances, the attack against the impugned orders on the ground that they are tainted with mala fides cannot be gone into.