V K MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned counsel assisted by Miss Rosylyn, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Kumar, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents.

(2.) PLEADED cases of the parties, deserved to be considered at the outset, are as under. Writ petitioner, who is presently working as Administrative Officer in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) in the Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre at Langjing (Imphal) and also presently, permanently settled at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, being aggrieved by the order of Signal dated 05. 04. 2006 (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) wherein and whereunder choice posting of petitioner was cancelled and he is transferred from the present place of posting i. e. office of the DIG, Imphal to Group Centre, Nagpur, Western Sector, filed this writ petition on the grounds that the said Signal is contrary to the provisions of guidelines issued by the Director General, CRPF through its standing order No. 05/2003 (Annexure-A/9 to the writ petition), particularly, sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause 6 of the said standing order. This Court by order dated 24. 04. 2006 issued Rule made returnable within four weeks and also passed an interim ordered suspending the impugned Signal dated 05. 04. 2006 (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) until further orders. On 03. 11. 2006, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order to the effect that 'at this stage is to require the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned authority of the CRPF to give him his choice posting i. e. Bangalore as per the norms in force and thereafter to require the said authority to pass necessary orders on the said request of the petitioner. That the representation to be filed by the petitioner be understood by the respondents as the representation filed pursuant to this Court's order. Necessary orders on the said representation will be passed by the respondents within one week from the date of receipt of the representation'.

(3.) IN compliance with this Court's order dated 03. 11. 2006, the petitioner made a representation to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority, after considering the facts and circumstances raised in the representation, rejected the same. After rejection of the representation, the petitioner challenged the said order of the authority in the Misc. Application No. 341 of 2006, wherein the petitioner also prayed that the said C. Misc. application may be treated as a part of this writ petition.