This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 25.6.2012 (A-1) to the extent the applicant has been transferred out at the verge of retirement.
(ii) quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2012.
(iii) declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant at hard station as illegal and arbitrary.
(iv) allow the OA with exemplary cost.”
2. This is a matter of transfer from Delhi to Lakshadweep vide impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 whereby several DANIPS officers have been transferred, including the applicant whose name figures at serial number 12. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed OA No.2119/2012. Notice was issued to the respondents and fifteen days’ time was allowed to them to decide the representation of the applicant. Meanwhile, until deciding the representation, the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012, with regard to the applicant, were kept in abeyance. Vide order dated 5.07.2012, respondents rejected the representation of the applicant. Accordingly, the OA was disposed of with liberty to file fresh OA and, therefore, the present OA has been filed.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that he was promoted in DANIPS cadre in 2008 and has been transferred to Lakshadweep in violation of the transfer policy, which reads as follows:
“(viii) The officers whose retirement is due within two years may not, normally, be posted in the outlying segments. However, at the request of the officer, his/her transfer/retention at an outlying constituent may be permitted even on the verge of retirement. It is further clarified that this stipulation will not be applicable to those officers, who resort to delaying tactics on one account or the other to avoid getting posted to outlying segments.”
The applicant has also cited several family circumstances due to which he is not in a position to join duties at Lakshadweep. He is a widower and his one daughter has passed away leaving three minor children. It is also the contention of the applicant that certain officers senior to him have been retained in Delhi whereas he has been moved out and that out of the list of transferred officers, four have been allowed to continue in Delhi. He has also raised the issue of existence of only one post of DANIPS under Lakshadweep Administration and that his grand- children are in mid academic session.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that as an entry grade officer, the applicant is liable to be posted to any Union Territory. Since the applicant has been inducted into DANIPS cadre against promotion quota, he is liable to be posted in the outlying segment for at least two years. Further, Lakshadweep Administration vide their letter dated 22.03.2012 sent a requisition for five DANIPS officers for costal security up gradation in the light of Somalian pirates. As a result of this requisition, it was decided to transfer five entry grade DANIPS officers from Delhi to Lakshadweep and accordingly orders dated 25.06.2012 were issued. It is also stated by the respondents that vide interim orders of CAT dated 29.06.2012 in OA 2119/2012, the respondents had been directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant. This has been done and it has been decided not to accede to the request of the applicant. Accordingly the applicant has been informed vide speaking orders dated 5.07.2012 (Annexure R-1) and has also been relieved vide orders dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure R-2). It is stated that there is a provision in the transfer policy that the officers whose retirement is due within next two years may not, normally, be posted in the outlying segments but the respondent Ministry has the right to transfer or post any officer at any time on administrative grounds. In the case of the applicant, at the time when the transfer order was issued, he had more than two years to serve. It is also provided in the same policy of transfer/posting of DANICS and DANIPS officers that tenure of DANICS/DANIPS officers in outlying segments shall be as follows:
“(i) The tenure of the DANICS/DANIPS officers in the `outlying segments’ will be as follows:
The promotee DANICS/DANIPS officers will have to serve in one of the outlying segments for a minimum period of 2 years. The direct recruit officers are required to serve in the outlying segments in two spells - the first spell will be of minimum 3 years and the second will be of minimum 2 years. However, the number of stints and duration in outlying segments may vary subject to availability of suitable officers.
(ii) The following periods will be excluded from the calculation of tenure spent in outlying segments:
Period spent on long leave, including study leave.
Period spent on a training course of duration longer than six weeks.
(iii) The transfer and postings of DANICS/DANIPS officer would be decided with the approval of the Joint Secretary (UT), i.e., the appointing authority.
(iv) Station seniority list of officers in each grade may be prepared on the basis of total period that they have spent in Delhi from the date of entering in the service, i.e., DANICS/ DANIPS. Officers, normally may not be posted to the outlying segments on the basis of station seniority.”
5. The applicant is a promotee officer and, therefore, he is liable to serve in outlying segments for a minimum period of two years. It is the contention of the respondents that applicant has no vested right to be posted at a place of his choice and that his transfer order is just and bonafide and has been passed by the competent authority in the interest of administration. Since no statutory rule has been violated nor is there any malafide alleged or proved, the Tribunal, relying on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court, may not interfere in the matter:
(i) Mrs. Silpi Bose and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532
(ii) UOI Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357
(iii) State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Goverdhan Lal, 2004 (3) SLJ 244 SC
(iv) Sujata Kohli Vs. High Court of Delhi, 148 (2008) DLT 17 (DB)
6. The respondents have also referred to the orders of the Apex Court in S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and anr., 2006 SCC (LandS) 1890, wherein it has been directed that in matters of transfer, the concerned person must join the place of posting and then make a representation for reconsideration.
7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the record on file.
8. A catena of judgments have been cited by both sides in support of their claims but it is settled law that transfer is a condition of service. In the present matter, in the clearly laid out policy of DANIPS officers, there are two provisions which are to be considered, one that every promotee DANIPS officer will have to serve in one of the outlying segments for a minimum period of 2 years and in case of direct recruit officers, they are required to serve in the outlying segments in two spells - the first spell will be of minimum 3 years and the second will be of minimum 2 years. The other provision is that normally officers should not be disturbed when there are less than two years left for them to retire. In the present case, when the orders of transfer were passed, the applicant had more than two years to retire and, therefore, there is no violation of any policy guidelines. As far as the provision for not transferring officers within two years to outlying segment is concerned, the policy also provides that “It is further clarified that this stipulation will not be applicable to those officers, who resort to delaying tactics on one account or the other to avoid getting posted to outlying segments.” Thus, the applicant who had more than two years to retire, has further jeopardized his case by going to Court and delaying implementation of the transfer order, thereby denying himself the benefit of the provision in the guidelines that he may not be disturbed within two years of retirement. Respondents have also pointed out the requirement of his posting at Lakshadweep due to problems of pirates from Somalia. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of arguments that there is no basis in the contention of the applicant that there is only one sanctioned post for DANIPS officers at Lakshadweep. He drew my attention to the provisions and rules whereby 105 posts which are kept in reserve can be manned in case requirement arises, as has happened in the present case.
9. I am satisfied that the action of the respondents is in conformity with the guidelines laid down and in public interest and, therefore, no intervention in the matter is merited. OA is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit. No costs.