ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order Annexure P/1 dated 2nd June, 2014 whereby the petitioner is transferred from Tekanpur to Western Command (Gujrat).

(2.) ASSAILING this order, Shri Mishra submits that the normal tenure for the petitioner to remain at one place is four years. He joined at Tekanpur pursuant to order dated 14th May, 2010 (Annexure P/2). Before completion of normal tenure, he submitted an application for extension of one year. Said prayer was made on medical grounds. By taking this Court to recommendation Annexure P/5, it is urged that the Officer Commanding, BSF Tekanpur has strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for retention at Tekanpur for one year. Shri Vivek Mishra relied on the statutory rules namely Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules 2000. It is submitted that as per Rule 12 of the said rules, it is only Director General of respondent organization who can decide the transfer/posting of the petitioner. It is urged that decision on petitioner's retention needs to be taken by the said authority. Transfer order is also not passed by the said authority. In addition, he relied on policy dated 25th February, 2014 (Annexure P/8). By reading clause (g) of this policy, it is submitted that matter was required to be forwarded to the Director General and said authority alone was competent to take a decision on the prayer of retention.

(3.) PER Contra, Ms. Ruchy Mody, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Rule 12 has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. The said rule is applicable only "during move of Battalion". She submits that petitioner is transferred in administrative exigency and not during move of Battlion and hence, reliance on Rule 12 is totally misconceived. She submitted that a careful reading of Annexure R/3 makes it clear that petitioner's representation is rejected by the competent authority/director and therefore, no case is made out for interference. She submits that petitioner has completed the normal tenure at Gwalior. There is no ingredient on which interference can be made by this Court. It is submitted that transfer is a condition of service and in absence of violation of Rules, no interference is warranted.