IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20323 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NO.850816493 HC/GD ANILKUMAR K.G., C.R.P.F., GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SRI.S.VISHNU.S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PALLIPPURAM RANGE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTHERN SECTOR, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, HYDERABAD. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.T.SANJAY, C.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20323/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER NO. 5/2003 DTD. 10/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DTD. 02/04/2009 TO THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRANSFER ORDER NO. T. IX- 1/2009-ESTT.II(SCT) DTD. 07/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/07/2009 TO THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER IS STUDYING IN 10TH STANDARD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/10/1997. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/10/07. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE OATH OF AFFIRMATION. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/07/2009. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER 2/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20323 of 2009 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Head Constable in the CRPF. He was posted at Pallipuram in Thiruvananthapuram District. By Ext.P3 order, he has been transferred to Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, though he joined service on 11/07/1987, the first Home State posting which he got is the present posting at Pallippuram in Thiruvananthapuram from 11/11/2007 onwards. It is contended that he is entitled to complete a tenure of three years in the present station. According to the petitioner, he had represented the matter before the Director General, CRPF by filing Ext.P4 and that orders were not passed thereon. In these circumstances, challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer this writ petition has been filed. 2. This Court while admitting this writ petition, passed order dated 20/07/2009 staying the transfer and the said order continues even as on date. 3. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents contend that out of the 24 years' service, the petitioner remained in field WP(C) No.20323/2009 -2- Units hardly for about 10 years and for the remaining period he has been enjoying postings in soft areas, viz., Jammu, Kochi, Coimbatore, Ahamadabad and Pallipuram. 4. Insofar as the petitioner's case that so far he has not been given any Home State posting is concerned, the respondents answered this contention by stating that the petitioner remained in Kerala for 3 years and 8 months while on deputation to the CBI retaining seniority and all service benefits in his parent Department. It is also stated that he was posted in the Rapid Action Force, which was raised at Pallipuram in Thiruvananthapuram and later re- located to Coimbatore in November, 2002. It is stated that the petitioner continued in the Rapid Action Force till he was promoted and posted to Ahamadabad in December, 2002. It is also stated that while the petitioner was deployed to Chattisgarh, the petitioner submitted a representation praying for a convenient posting to Kerala, and the main reason stated was that his daughter was studying in the 10th standard. It is stated that considering the request, by Ext.R1(a) order dated 11/10/2007 the petitioner was transferred to Pallipuram for a period of one year. According to the respondents, on expiry of one year period, he ought to have been WP(C) No.20323/2009 -3- transferred out, it was only by Ext.P3 the petitioner was transferred. Insofar as Ext.P4 is concerned, contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the said representation was not received by the Director General. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner holds a transferable post and there are Special Rules that govern transfer and posting. Therefore it is open to the authorities to transfer the petitioner and make use of his service in the manner they deem it appropriate. An order of transfer can be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only if the said order is proved to be vitiated by malafides or extreme arbitrariness. Question is whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the transfer is vitiated for any one of those reasons. Insofar as Ext.P3 is concerned, no ground of malafides have been urged or established in this writ petition and therefore, what remains is whether it is vitiated for arbitrariness. While appreciating this contention of the petitioner, one cannot forget the fact that it was only by Ext.R1(a) the petitioner was transferred and posted to Pallipuram and this order makes it specifically clear that the posting was for a period of one year and WP(C) No.20323/2009 -4- therefore, once the one year period specified in Ext.R1(a) expired, it was open to the authorities to transfer the petitioner, and if that was done, it would have been unassailable. On the other hand, it was only by Ext.P3 issued in July, 2009 that the petitioner was transferred to Chandigarh, which also is unassailable. This itself, belies the challenge against Ext.P3 on the ground that the said order is vitiated for arbitrariness. That apart, in the counter affidavit it is stated that out of the total service of 24 years rendered by the petitioner, except he remained in the field units for hardly 10 years, for the balance period he was posted in soft areas. For that reason also, I cannot find fault with the respondents for having issued Ext.P3 recalling the petitioner to his parent Unit. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the objection raised against Ext.P3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg