Point of Law: Transfer of the petitioner - Judicial interference in an incidence of service i.e., transfer can be only on malafides, incompetence or violation of any Rule/policy/operative guidelines.

ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question a Movement order dated 08.02.2021 transferring and directing movement of the petitioner from Yelahanka, Bengaluru to Odisha.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition as borne out from the pleadings are that, the petitioner joined the services of Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSF’ for short) as a Constable in the year 1984 and at the relevant point in Replaced time was working as an Inspector in BSF. It is pleaded by the petitioner that during his service spanning for about 36 years from 1984 till the passage of the impugned order, has served in various parts of the country. The posting and services rendered by the petitioner throughout his service are as follows:

3. The petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of April 2020. In the year 2018, two years prior to his date of retirement the petitioner was posted to Yelahanka, Bengaluru. This posting according to the petitioner was ostensibly on the ground that he was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in two years time.

4. When the petitioner was functioning at Bengaluru the age of retirement of all the personnel including that of the petitioner was enhanced from 57 to 60 years. It is then the time of retirement of the petitioner got changed from April 2020 to April 2023. It is when the petitioner was serving at Bangalore the impugned Movement order is issued posting the petitioner from Bengaluru to the office of BBSR (BSF), Odisha which is the Technical Headquarters of the BSF at Odisha. It is this Movement order that is called in question in the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. Sunil Kumar H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner throughout his career of 36 years has worked in several places; he is aged about 58 years; he is in the fag end of his career; he is entitled to protection under a Rule which prohibit terminal transfers, and would submit the writ petition be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel, Sri. S. Rajashekar representing the respondents would contend that it is a Movement order and not a transfer order per se; the petitioner being an officer of the disciplined force cannot contend that he should be posted to a particular place more so, in the light of the facts and circumstances in the case, he would seek dismissal of the writ petition.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. Transfer an incidence of service, is by now a too well settled principle of law. But such transfers of any personnel in the Government is generally regulated by Rules/Government orders/operative guidelines by way of policy as obtaining from time to time. Therefore, such incidence of service is hed