BHOIRORE MECH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. PK Biswas, learned Asst. SG for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, a Constable working under the Central Industrial Security Force (for short, "CISF") by way of filing this writ petition, has approached this Court for the second time and has called in question the order dated 16.09.2011 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was posted to FSTPP, Farakka on the ground that the respondent-authority has violated the prescriptions in the guidelines relating to posting/transfer of CISF personnel dated 20.01.2008 (Annexure-P1 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder it is prescribed that (i) all annual transfer orders shall normally be issued by 31st March and in any case, not later than 30th April of the year and (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, the Director General may, if necessary to do so in administrative operational/public interest, transfer or post any OR to any station or post, at any time and (iii) officers will be permitted extension in his present unit for one year if his ward is studying in 9th or 11th class in the current academic year. He/she will not be given extension in the next years on the ground of 2nd ward/wards studying in 9th or 11th class in the subsequent year. If the personnel visualizes such apposition, he should seek pre-mature transfer to other unit/sector as the case may, so that his ward/wards can as far as possible be located at the place where they can pass their examinations within his prescribed tenure there, etc. The petitioner in his writ petition while praying for quashing the order dated 16.09.2011 also asked for directing the respondents to act in conformity with the policy relating to transfer/posting dated 28.01.2008 (Anneuxre-P1 to the writ petition) along with other prayers.

(3.) The respondents have filed their counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. In their counter affidavit it is the stand of the respondents that the place where the petitioner has been transferred has every facility for the education of the petitioner's daughter and not only that, the authority also considered the representation filed by the petitioner, as observed by this court and ultimately upheld the order of transfer rejecting the representation of the petitioner on 15.11.2011. It is also stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) 427 of 2011, learned Single Judge of this Court has found the impugned transfer order to be valid and did not interfere with the same, rather an opportunity was granted to the petitioner for making a representation before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned transfer order again by way of a second writ petition.