Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5107 of 2013 Sushil Kumar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Krishna & Mr. Amit Sinha For the Respondents : Md. Mokhtar Khan, A.S.G.I. 03/26.08.2013 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer dated 23.7.2013 whereby he has been transferred to the 226 B.N. Jalandhar issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General (Administration) office of Director General, Central Zone, Kolkata from the present place of posting as Sub Inspector, C.R.P.F. in Group Centre, Jharkhand, Ranchi. According to the petitioner for raising 226 BN Jalandhar nomination were asked from different group centres including the Jharkhand centre of such personnel who were having the longest stay in the respective centres. The petitioner's name was recommended by the Inspector General, Group Centre, Jharkhand by communication contained at Annexure-3 dated 12.7.2013. Petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-4 dated 13.7.2013 to the Inspector General, Group Centre, Jharkhand, C.R.P.F. taking inter-alia grounds of treatment of his mother who is said to be suffering from cancer as also other grounds. It is the contention on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had entered the Group Centre, Ranchi on 3.10.2011 and there are several persons senior to him having longer stay at Jharkhand Group Centre as per the chart contained at para 22 of the writ application. Therefore, Inspector General, Jharkhand Group Centre vide communication contained at Annexure-5 dated 17.7.2013 withdrew his nomination and recommended the name of another Assistant Sub Inspector Satya Narayan Singh or remaining two Assistant Sub Inspector, who had been promoted to the post of Sub Inspector and allotted Central Zone, to be transferred to the 226 BN Jalandhar on promotion as Sub Inspector. However, by the impugned order contained at Annexure-6 issued by the Deputy Inspector General(Administration), office of Director General , Central Zone, Kolkata petitioner has been nominated for -2- posting at 226 BN Jalandhar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the nomination order of the petitioner was itself withdrawn, therefore the order of transfer is non-est in the eye of law based upon such recommendation. It is also submitted that petitioner did not have longest posting than any other personnel as per the chart contained at para 22 of the writ petition. It is also submitted that mother of the petitioner is undergoing treatment locally at Ranchi. Therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been considered sympathetically for which he has made representation vide Annexure-4 itself. The respondents, however contested the claim of the petitioner. According to them the transfer is made on exigency in the service. In the instant case petitioner's name was nominated by the Inspector General, Group Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand . Thereafter, for the purposes of raising 226 BN Jalandhar from personnel from different group centres of Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal, the impugned order of transfer has been passed, as the petitioner was Sub Inspector, working in the group centre, Ranchi. It is submitted that withdrawal of nomination was also considered by the competent authority and it was found that it is not possible in view of the reasons stated therein. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he did not have longest stay in comparison to others is not correct as he had also remained at Ranchi from 2005-2010. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the standing order of the C.R.P.F. which is enclosed to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner himself annexed as Annexure-8 where it is enumerated that the competent transferring authority will have the right to transfer a person at any time, irrespective of tenure on administrative grounds/ in public interest. However, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder has rebutted the order of transfer as being not an administrative order. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. The main ground for seeking quashing of the impugned order on behalf of the petitioner is based upon the withdrawal of nomination earlier made by the Inspector General, -3- Group Centre, Jharkhand vide Annexure-3 dated 12.7.2013. The said withdrawal is said to have been made by Annexure-5 dated 17.7.2013, 5 days after the nomination itself. It however appears on perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 23.7.2013 and Annexure-7 dated 22.7.2013 that the withdrawal of nomination of the petitioner was not accepted by the Central Zone Office of the respondent- C.R.P.F. The ground for such non- acceptance are also indicated in Annexure-7 by stating that the petitioner was found eligible for posting at 226 BN Jalandhar and his case was processed accordingly over A.S.I., Satya Narayan Singh of Group Centre, Ranchi allotted Central Zone on promotion or any other allottee to 226 BN Jalandhar. They were not found appropriate as none of them had been allotted to the Group Centre, Ranchi on promotion. Therefore, before the impugned order of transfer, the withdrawal of nomination has also been considered by the transferring authority and has been overruled. In the matter of transfer, that too in the uniform force like C.R.P.F. , it would not be proper to interfere in an order of transfer since the petitioner has been transferred to 226 BN Jalandhar due to exigency of raising the Battalian as would appear from the correspondence exchanged between the respondents. Even otherwise, though the transfer may not be administrative, it is permissible to the transferring authority to transfer in exigency of service. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, if the petitioner submits his joining at the transferred place of posting his representation, based inter-aila on number of grounds may be considered by the competent authority i.e. Respondent No.3, Special Director General, Central Zone, Office at Kolkata in accordance with law within a reasonable time. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty