HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4959 of 2010 Date: April 8, 2010 Between: Mr. S. Karmakar, CISF Constable, Aviation Security Guard, Hyderabad, C/o. Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Limited, Shamshabad, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Director General, Block No.13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003, and two others … Respondents Order: The petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. He questions proceedings dated 17-02-2010, issued in Message No.E-38018/34/2009/ESTT.II/Vol-4/51, by which the competent authority has approved to transfer the services of about 147 Constables and the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No.142. His posting is approved and he is transferred from Airport Sector to North-Eastern Sector. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that certain guidelines are notified by the respondents-CISF for the purpose of postings and transfers of its personnel and the impugned proceedings, transferring his services, is in violation of the said guidelines. It is stated that for the purpose of transfers within home zone and outside home zone, entire tenure is divided into four tenures and the petitioner, who is serving his third tenure, is entitled to continue outside home zone for a period of six years. It is further the case of the petitioner that as he is working in Airport Sector, which is an independent Sector, he is entitled to continue at the same place, which is outside the home zone. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as per circular instructions dated 28-01-2008, issued in CISF Circular No.01/2008, which are in force, it is categorically stated that as per the provisions under Section 15 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, it is always open to the respondents to post any member of the Force at any time, to any place within India. It is stated that, in the very circular, it is made clear that on administrative grounds and in the interest of operational efficiency of the Force, he/she can be posted anywhere in India irrespective of the guidelines/tenure prescribed. It is further stated that as the petitioner has not continued for a full term of twelve years in his second tenure, he is posted in his home zone, which is in his home State also. It is stated that basing on the guidelines, the petitioner, a member of the Force, cannot seek retention at a particular place, for total number of years, continuously, as mentioned in the guidelines. 4. Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of Section 15 of Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 would indicate that absolute authority is vested in the respondents to post every member of the Force at any place in India. Even in the circular instructions which are in force, it is clearly stated that a member of the Force can be posted anywhere in India irrespective of the guidelines/tenure prescribed in the guidelines itself. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue for a period of six years as he is serving third tenure, it is to be noted that he did not compete total twelve years in the units in home zone in his second tenure; as such, he is posted in home zone by the impugned proceedings. Merely because in the third tenure, six years’ posting is provided outside the home zone, that does not mean that no transfer can be made to the home zone, particularly, in absence of not serving full term of twelve years in the second tenure. Even with regard to continuance in Airport Sector, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek three years tenure each in three Airports. In the light of the provision under Section 15 of Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, the petitioner, being a member of Security Force, has to serve as per the administrative need and exigencies, whenever manpower is required. Transfer is an incidence of service. An employee working on a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is the choice of the employer to determine, as to the place and for how long, the services of an employee are required. A transfer order cannot be interfered with, which is made for administrative reasons, unless the same is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fides. The impugned transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of the legal rights of the petitioner. In any event, on the ground of alleged violation of provisions in the guidelines, the petitioner cannot seek any directions in this petition to declare the transfer as illegal in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I see no valid reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. Needless to state that the interim order passed earlier stands dissolved. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 8, 2010 MRR