IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14681 of 2010 1. A.RAJAN MEITEI , SON OF LATE A. DHANANJOY,SFA (A), O/O – A.O. SSB. BATHNAHA, ARARIA, BIHAR 2. HARENDRA GOWALA, SON OF LATE DINANATH GOWALA, SFA (V), O/O –A.O. SSB, BATHNAHA, ARARIA, BIHAR 3. H. RAJESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE H.A. CHOUBA SINGH, SFA (V) , O/O- A.O. SSB, BIRPUR, BIHAR 4. BHANU LAL DAS, SON OF LATE GURU CHARAN DAS, SFA(V), O/O SSB, BIRPUR, BIHAR 5. BHUGESHWAR CHETIA, SON OF LATE HARAKT CHETIA,SFA(V), O/O –A.O.,SSB, KISHANGANJ, BIHAR 6. W. LOAKENDRO SINGH, SON OF LATE W. MOHAN SINGH, SFA(V),O/O-A.O. SSB,KISHANGANJ,BIHAR….. PETITINERS VERSUS 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL, SHASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, EAST BCLOCK-5,R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-66 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, F.T.R. HEAD QUARTER, SSB,PATNA, BIHAR 5. THE AREA ORGANISER, SSB, BATHNAHA, BIHAR 6. THE AREA ORGANISER, BIRPUR, BIHAR 7. THE AREA ORGANISER, SSB, KISHANGANJ, BIHAR…………………………………………RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 14-9-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2010 whereby O.A. No.249 of 2007 along with some other analogous OAs have been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on the ground that the impugned order which is annexed as annexure-1 dated 11th February,2008, does not 2 amount to changing the cadre or service conditions of the petitioners. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned order dated 14-7-2010 passed by the Tribunal is against law and erroneous because the transfer and posting of the petitioners from various places to different Battalions/ Units of the S.S.B under order dated 11.2.2008 is an attempt to force the petitioners to work with Para-Military Organization of S.S.B. although the petitioners are only holding the post of Senior Field Assistant (Vety) ( for sake of brevity S.F.A.) in the Sashastra Seema Bal ( for short SSB). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon annexure-2, a notification dated 31-3-1989 and also upon annexure-3 a memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Security, office of the Director, SSB, New Delhi to substantiate his claim that the para-vetrinary staff constitute a separate cadre and as per service conditions they are not required to be posted with the different units of SSB which is a para-military organization. 5. On a careful perusal of annexures 2 and 3 it is 3 found that the post of para-veterinary staff is admittedly in the SSB itself and the Rules do not contain any restriction on posting of such veterinary staff with the different battalions/units of SSB. Annexure-3, the office memorandum dated 26th February ,1990 describes the aims and objectives of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry work to be performed by the CAS Grade-I (Vety) and the para-Veterinary staff. The main objective of such work in the SSB is to motivate and win over the hearts and minds of the people in the bordering and remote areas by up-lifting their socio-economic conditions through an efficient live-stock and poultry occupation/ farming so that the people inhabiting the remote strategic areas of the country become more receptive to the SSB philosophy and are encouraged to participate in the SSB work/programme. No doubt, the memorandum mentions that the gazetted para-Veterinary staff and the non-gazetted para- Veterinary staff will perform duties limited to their skill but that relates only to the nature of work to be performed by the para-Vetrinary staff like the petitioners and there does not appear to be any restriction upon the power of the competent authority to transfer and post them in different 4 battalions/units. No cadre rules were shown to support the allegation of illegal transfer/posting. In fact, annexure-1 itself shows that some S.F.A’s were already posted with Battalions from where they have been transferred to other Battalions. 6. We find no merit in the submission that the employees such as para-Vetrinary staff of SSB are to be transferred and posted by Secretary of Cabinet Affairs, Central Government and not by the competent authority of SSB. No such rules and regulations were brought to our notice. In taking policy decisions the different Ministries have definite role but in the matters of service conditions in respect of any organization belonging to SSB, there is no material to show that they are beyond the control of authorities of the SSB including its Director General. 7. Transfer and postings are incidents of service and an employee has no right to be transferred or posted at any particular place of choice so long as service conditions are not adversely affected and the posting is not with another employer or organization. An ordinary transfer and posting as 5 per needs of the organization cannot be treated to be an order adverse to the interest of the employees. Even transfer and posting along with the concerned post lies within the competence of the employer and such order cannot be treated adverse to the concerned employees like the petitioners. Principles of natural justice are not attracted to such a situation. 8. On behalf of petitioners reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh Vrs. N.T.P.C., reported in AIR 2008 SC 336. In paragraph-18 of that judgment it has been highlighted that transfer of employees to a private organization from a public sector undertaking without their specific consent is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid principle but the facts in this case are quite different. Here the transfer and posting is to different places but within the same organization i.e. SSB and there is no change of service conditions of the employees. On considering the relevant materials we find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal and there is no good reason to interfere. 6 Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)