IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12454 of 2008 Between: K. Mashanna S/o. K. Sayanna CISF Unit, BDL., Bhanur, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, Besant Road, Chennai. 2 The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, BDL., Bhanur, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from BDL Bhanur to Chennai Port Trust, in pursuance of the 2nd respondent's letter dated 11.06.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner at BDL., Bhanur. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Head Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). At present, he is posted at CISF Unit at BDL, Bhanur, Medak District. Vide proceedings, dated 11.06.2008, he was transferred to Port Trust at Chennai. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer, on several grounds. He contends that he has hardly three years of left over service and he had already completed 14 years of service out of home zone. Placing reliance upon the transfer policy evolved by the respondents, he contends that the present order of transfer does not accord with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner, at this stage, to a distant place, would result in serious hardship, apart from it being violative of the policy evolved by the respondents. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, has placed before this Court a copy of circular, dated 28.01.2008, and submits that the transfer of the petitioner was effected in accordance with the policy contained therein. The CISF is an organization, which has its units through out the country. Its members to hail from one part of the country are required to be posted in other parts. To ensure objectivity in the matter of posting at various places in the country, the CISF issued a circular No.48 of 1986, dated 28.11.1985. According to this, the posting tenures are divided into 7 parts and the duration of posting is stipulated as under: “a) Basic Training -1 year b) Out of Home Zone (1st Tenure) -5 years c) Home State (2nd tenure) -6 years (2 stations/units) d) Home Zone (3rd tenure) -6 years (-do-) e) Out of Home Zone (4th tenure) -3 years (1 station/unit) f) Home Zone (5th tenure) g) Home State -6 years (2 stations/units) (6th tenure and remaining years of service if any). To sum up, a member of the service is liable to be posted out of home zone for a period of 11 years, excluding training period and for the remaining service, he can be posted in the home zone. The policy was revised through circular No.1 of 2008, dated 28.01.2008. According to this, the tenures are divided into four types, which are as under: “1st tenure -6 years in Units in Out of Home Zone 2nd tenure -12 years in Units in Home Zone 3rd tenure -6 years in Units in Out of Home Zone 4th tenure -In Home Zone, subject to availability of (Remaining Service) vacancies.” Under this policy, the tenure for which a member can be posted out of home zone is 12 years. Reverting to the facts of the case, out of his total service, thus far, the petitioner served out of home zone during his first and second tenures for a period of 8 years one month and 6 years 5 months, respectively, totalling to 14 years 6 months. The rest of his tenure was in home zone. The period for which he is under obligation to serve out of home zone had, in fact, exceeded, whether it is the one prescribed under circular No.48 of 1986 or 1 of 2008. Further, under both the circulars, the last tenure of an employee is required to be in the home zone. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer cannot be sustained, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, and the same is, accordingly, set aside. It is, however, left to the respondents that, in case it becomes difficult for them to continue the petitioner in the same station, it shall be open to them to post the petitioner in any other station in the home zone. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:18.06.2008 Note:Furnish C.C. in two days. (b/o) GJ