IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12834 of 2008 Between: Y. Krishna Rao S/o. Y. Venkateshwar Rao Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Road No.1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropirate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Proceedings No.T.IX.42/2008-ADM-1 dt. 23.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal and consequently to set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12834 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Sub-Inspector in C.R.P.F. Up to August 2004, he worked at the Group Center, Pinjore, Haryana State. Vide order, dated 11.08.2004, he was transferred to Range Head Quarters, Hyderabad. In the summer chain transfers for the year 2008, the petitioner is transferred to 12th Battalion in the State of Assam, vide order, dated 23.05.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. He places reliance upon the transfer policy issued by the respondents, which is to the effect that the tenure of a member of the service shall be 4 years at a station and it shall be reckoned, as on 31st March of the concerned year. The petitioner contends that he does not complete the tenure and the transfer is opposed to the policy. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, furnishing the details of the places, where the petitioner worked, ever since his appointment. It is stated that though the petitioner did not complete the four years’ tenure, the 1st respondent has the discretion to effect pre-mature transfers also. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is always in the discretion of the appointing authority to post the employees under him, to various places, depending upon the administrative exigencies and need. To impart an element of objectivity in the transfers, policies have been framed from time to time. According to the policy in vogue, the tenure of a member of CRPF is fixed as four years and the period has to be reckoned as on 31st March, of the concerned year. When proposal was mooted to transfer the petitioner, he made a representation to the 1st respondent. The remarks of the 2nd respondent were called for. In his letter, dated 29.05.2008, the 2nd respondent categorically stated that the petitioner would complete four years of tenure only in August 2008 and he would be eligible for transfer in the next summer chain transfers. This, however, was not taken into account. When the record clearly discloses that the petitioner did not complete the ordinary tenure, he cannot be subjected to transfer. The only protection given to the members of the service, under the transfer policy, cannot be denied, unless extraordinary circumstances warranting deviation are indicated. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 23.05.2008, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner in the next summer chain transfers. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 15.07.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12834 of 2008 Date: 15.07.2008 JSU