IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25388 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR.D.,CT/GD 015242388, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, "CONSTABLE/GENERAL DUTY", CRPF, GROUP CENTER, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT "THAKADIYIL", POTHAPPALLY SOUTH, KUMARAPURAM P.O., HARIPAD, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL (P), SOUTHERN SECTOR, CRPF, HYDERABAD, ANDRA PRADESH-500033. 2. THE DIG P, GROUP CENTER, CRPF, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695316. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (CRPF), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-03. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25388 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 23.11.10 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FORCE. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPEDICS, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17.5.2011. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER DTED 14.3.11 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FORCE. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 20.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY DATED 13.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2011 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8SERIES A TRUE COPIES OF THE OFFICE ORDER AND MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 19.9.2011 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No. 25388 of 2011-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings of the first and second respondents. As per Ext.P7, a representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and as per Ext.P8 the petitioner has been directed to report for duty to Chandigarh. 2. The petitioner is working as a Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short). While working with the 51 Battalion at Chandigarh, as per Ext.P1 order he was posted temporarily to the Group Centre at Pallippuram for a period of six months. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was given a transfer for six months as evident from Ext.P1. On the strength of Ext.P1, the petitioner joined the Group Centre at WP(C).No. 25388/2011-W. 2 Pallippuram. Even prior to the expiry of the period of six months, a signal message was issued to the petitioner with direction to report for duty at Chandigarh. However, he challenged the same by filing WP(C)No.14187/2011. According to the petitioner, since his wife is sick and was undergoing medical treatment, he had to be continued at his present place of posting. He had also submitted a representation to the first respondent requesting for his retention at Pallippuram. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed that the said request be considered and appropriate orders be passed thereon. Accordingly Ext.P7 has been issued on 6.9.2011 declining his request. As per Ext.P8, the petitioner has been directed to report for duty at Chandigarh. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings of the respondents. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Exts.P7 and P8 are issued without considering the directions in Ext.P6 judgment. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to a 'static posting' at the WP(C).No. 25388/2011-W. 3 Group Centre at Pallippuram as per the transfer norms applicable. If such static posting is granted to him, he would not be liable to be transferred for three years. The above aspect has not been adverted to in Ext.P7, it is pointed out. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of Exts.P7 and P8. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the statement, the petitioner was posted only temporarily to the Group Centre at Pallippuram for a period of six months as per Ext.P1 order. The representation by the petitioner was considered properly and it was decided by the authorities that the petitioner should report for duty at Chandigarh. Therefore, it is contended that the claims of the petitioner have been duly considered by the authority and instead of raising untenable points, the petitioner should as a disciplined personnel report to the unit concerned. 5. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the representation submitted by him did not contain any WP(C).No. 25388/2011-W. 4 request for the static posting that is claimed by him. I do not find any direction in Ext.P6 judgment to consider any such claim of the petitioner. In fact, Ext.P6 judgment takes note of the fact that the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to static posting was one that did not find a place in his representation. It is also worthwhile noticing that the direction in Ext.P6 is confined to a consideration and disposal of his representation, which has been done as per Ext.P7. 6. According to counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings Ext.P7 has been issued even before a copy of Ext.P6 was obtained. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri.T.Sanjay on behalf of the Assistant Solicitor General points out that the judgment Ext.P6 was dictated in the open Court on 29.7.2011 and the gist thereof had been conveyed to the first respondent on the said day itself. It was thereafter that Ext.P7 has been issued on 6.9.2011. I do no find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the above submission. Ext.P7 is dated 6.9.2011 and Ext.P8 is dated WP(C).No. 25388/2011-W. 5 19.9.2011, well after the date of Ext.P6. 7. Ext.P1 movement order shows that the same is limited to six months. No provision of law has been shown to me, that entitles the petitioner to continue at the Group Centre at Pallippuram, after the expiry of the period of six months stipulated in Ext.P1. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the norms prescribed for transfer are not applicable to the persons who are only granted temporary postings as in Ext.P1. At any rate, the grievances of the petitioner have been considered and orders have been passed, as per Ext.P7. In the above circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with either Exts.P7 or P8 orders. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-