IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29113 of 2011 Between: P.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The Central Industrial Security Force Represented by its Director General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29113 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 22.10.2011 based on the rejection of the petitioner’s request to change of transferred place i.e. BDL, Bhanur Unit, Medak District (AP) to CISF, KIOCL Kudurmukh of Karnataka state, by the 2nd respondent vide his message instructions dated 18.10.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Circular No.1/2008, violative of principles of natural justice and also Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner in the 4th respondents unit or in and around Hyderabad (AP) keeping in view of petitioner and his wife’s health condition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Head Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the control of the 4th respondent’s unit, Deputy Commandant, CISF, BDL Bhanur Unit, Medak, since 03.09.2010. He was transferred to the 4th respondent’s unit at his request on the grounds of health condition of himself and his wife and children’s education. The petitioner was transferred to the 4th respondent’s unit without TA and DA vide Movement Order dated 03.09.2010. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner is transferred from the 4th respondent’s unit to CISF Unit KIOCL Kudurmukh (Karnataka State) vide DIG/CISF South Zone in letter dated 28.06.2011 by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Inspector General, CISF, South Zone, Besant Road, Chennai, without serving a copy of the said transfer proceedings to the petitioner. However, the petitioner came to know about his transfer through notice board displayed at the unit. Immediately, on seeing the transfer proceedings in the notice board, the petitioner made a representation to the IG/CISF, South Sector, through proper channel, requesting him to defer the said transfer proceedings by considering his and his wife’s health condition and also his children’s education. The said application was forwarded to the 3rd respondent, Commandant, CISF, BDL Bhanur Unit, Medak, through proper channel on 20.07.2011. But, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 22.10.2011 directed the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioner in pursuance of his transfer proceedings dated 28.06.2011. Based on the said instructions, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner directing him to collect the movement order to relieve from the existing unit to the transferred place i.e. KIOCL, Kudurmukh. In fact, the petitioner is not relieved since he is on medical leave. Thus, aggrieved by the proceedings of the 4th respondent, in issuing the relieving order vide proceedings dated 22.10.2011, based on the rejection of the petitioner’s request to change of place by the 2nd respondent vide his message instructions dated 18.10.2011, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s transfer order is contrary to the Circular No.1 of 2008, wherein, it is categorically mentioned that every constable and head constable are entitled to continue for a period of three years in an unit, which can also be extended to one more year. According to the said circular, the petitioner is entitled to remain in the existing unit i.e. 4th respondent’s unit for a period of another three years as he has not completed the three years. He further submitted that the impugned transfer order is passed in the middle of the academic year and his three daughters are studying (first daughter is studying M.Sc., II Year and the 2nd and the 3rd daughters are studying degree). Besides the above, he also submitted that himself and his wife also suffering from ill-health particularly, his wife is suffering from cancer for which, she requires acute medical treatment. He also submitted that the petitioner is transferred under impugned transfer order where there are no proper medical facilities. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the 4th respondent’s unit on 03.09.2010 at his request and he was not allowed to work there even for one year though the Circular No.1 of 2008 permits him to work in a unit for about three to four years. It is also submitted that there are security personnel, who are working for more than last four to five years and they are not disturbed but disturbed the petitioner, who even did not complete one year. Hence, the impugned transfer order is illegal and contrary to the said circular besides violation of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of above contentions, he placed reliance in the case of SHESHRAO NAGARAO UMAP v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[1] wherein the division bench opined that the frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons, are mala fide. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned transfer order is made on administrative grounds. In normal circumstances, the Courts cannot interfere with the transfer orders unless any mala fides are attributed or the transfer orders are effected with a view to accommodate any other person. It is also submitted that the Circular No.01 of 2008 is a guidelines issued by the respondents and it is not mandatory and does not confer upon the petitioner a legally enforceably right and they do not have statutory force, moreover, in the beginning para of the said circular categorically mentioned that “every member of the Force shall be considered to be always on duty and shall, at any time, be liable to be employed at any place within India. Therefore, on administrative grounds and in the interest of operational efficiency of the Force, he/she can be posted any where in India irrespective of the guidelines/tenure prescribed below. Further, the tenure of postings prescribed in this Circular is only by way of guidelines and can be increased/curtailed on administrative grounds, operational need and in public interest.” Hence, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents not to transfer him unless he completed his three years of tenure in a particular unit. Eventually, he submitted that after considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned transfer order. It is also submitted that the petitioner alone is not transferred but transferred the five personnel and the petitioner is one among them and one of the personnel i.e. P.Padma Kumar filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.19511 of 2011 questioning the transfer order dated 28.06.2011 and this Court declined to interfere with the transfer order aggrieved by which, the petitioner therein preferred an appeal in W.A. No.613 of 2011 and the Division Bench of this Court also while declining to interfere with the transfer order disposed of the appeal justifying the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the case on hand is not fit for consideration on merits. In support of his above contentions, he placed reliance in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. S.L.ABBAS[2]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned transfer order suffers from any legal infirmity? Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Head Constable under the 4th respondent’s unit where he did not complete his period of tenure even for one year and he was again transferred and posted to KIOCL, Kudurmukh, Karnataka State, and issued relieving orders vide office memorandum dated 22.10.2011, which reads as under: “RELIEVING ON REGULAR POSTING ; REG. DIG/CISF South Zone Hqrs Chennai has intimated vide their EO-Mail message No.E- 38017/E2/SZ/2011/669 dated 18th Oct 2011 that your request for change of place of posting has been considered and regretted by the competent authority. As per the direction of DIG/CISF SZ Hqrs Chennai, you will be relieved by this office / Unit on 29/10/2011(AN). Hence you are hereby directed to submit your clearance from all concerned by 28/10/2011 and collect movement order and railway warrant for proceeding on regular posting to CISF Unit KIOCL Kudermukh.” The specific contention of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the Circular No.1 of 2008 and clause 2 of the said circular contemplates that all annual transfer orders shall normally be issued by 31st March and in any case not later than 30th April of the year, and further, clause 8 contemplates the tenure of posting in a unit is three years, which can be extended by another one year. In response to the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the beginning para of said circular, which reads as under: “According to the provisions contained in Section 15 of CISF Act-1968, every member of the Force shall be considered be always on duty and shall, at any time, be liable to be employed at any place within India. Therefore, on administrative grounds and in the interest of operational efficiency of the Force, he/she can be posted any where in India irrespective of the guidelines/tenure prescribed below. Further, the tenure of postings prescribed in this Circular is only by way of guidelines and can be increased/curtailed on administrative grounds, operational need and in public interest.” From the above, it is clear that though clause 2 and 8 of the said circular contemplates as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is evident from the very beginning para of the said circular that the respondents can, on administrative grounds and in the interest of operational efficiency of the Force can be posted any where in India irrespective of the guidelines tenure prescribed. As the petitioner’s transfer is effected on administrative grounds, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable. Coming to other contentions of the petitioner, he placed reliance in the case of Sheshrao (one supra), wherein at para 4 held as under: “We are constrained to make these observations since this Court is flooded with writ petitions wherein allegations of mala fides, nepotism and political interference are made in the matters of transfers. It is no doubt true that the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved and it is easy to make such allegations but difficult to prove. But it cannot be forgotten that when Government departs from its avowed policy, and issues orders of transfer or its cancellation in an unusual manner then people get an opportunity to make allegations of mala fides. We feel that this all can very well be avoided if an uniform policy is laid down and scrupulously followed. The case in hand is a telling example of flagrant abuse of power. In our opinion it is now high time, that the Chief of the Administrative machinery should personally look into the matter, and stop this abuse of power.” From a perusal of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case, it is observed that the contention of the petitioner therein was that he was transferred with a view to accommodate the respondent No.4 therein and therefore, while considering the said aspect, the Apex Court made the said comments. But in the instant case it is not the case of the petitioner that he is transferred to accommodate some one in his place. In response to all the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the case of UNION OF INDIA (2 supra), wherein the Apex Court held as under: “The respondent attributed “mischief” to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.” From the above judgment, it is clear that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Further, it is no doubt that while effecting the transfers, the authorities must keep in mind the guidelines. In the instant case also Circular No.1 of 2008, in other words the guidelines, is in existence and according to which, it contemplates that the tenure of posting of staff in a unit is three years, which can be extended by another one year but it is to be noted here that the same is not mandatory. Further, it is also to be seen here that a person can make representation with respect to his transfer and the authorities must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. In the instant case also, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities narrating all his grievances and requested to change of place of posting and the respondent authorities have considered the same and while regretting the said application directed to collect movement order. Eventually, the learned counsel for the respondents placed a copy of the judgment rendered in W.A. No.613 of 2001, which was filed aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No.19511 of 2011, which was filed questioning the transfer order dated 28.06.2011. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the said appeal reads as under: “A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the appellant has just completed one year service at BDL, Bhanur. As per the procedure in vogue the CISF personnel are entitled to remain in a Unit for a period of three years, which may be extended for one more year. But, due to inadvertence, the respondents transferred the appellant under the impression that the appellant has completed three years of service. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the transfer orders when it is made on administrative grounds. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge directed the appellant-petitioner to file an application for transfer before the 2nd respondent after joining in the new station and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall pass necessary orders duly taking into consideration the facts of the case sympathetically and also with reference to the guidelines framed by the Government of India for transfer. The findings as arrived at by the learned single Judge are perfectly justified and needs no interference. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant-petitioner has already made representation before the respondents on 2.7.2011 and the same is pending. In view of the above submission and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation of the appellant dated 2-7-2011, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the appellant is at liberty to join at new station after receipt fo the relieving letter. Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” Since the very same transfer order dated 28.06.2011 was questioned by another employee in a writ petition and thereafter preferred an appeal, this writ petition can also be disposed of by following the said order but as the learned counsel on either side argued the matter vehemently and therefore, for better appreciation of the matter, considered the instant writ petition in detail. However, following the judgment rendered in the said appeal and also for the reasons observed hereinabove this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is prepared join at new station, he may be permitted to make afresh representation to the 1st respondent and on making such representation, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time. Accordingly, as the petitioner is prepared to join at new station, he is given liberty to make afresh representation, after joining at new station, to the 1st respondent and on making such representation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 01.11.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. B/o. LSK [1] 1984(2) SLR 328 [2] 1993 AIR 2444