A premature transfer order issued by the Chief Security Commissioner, who was the approving authority, is contrary to the statutory provision as once there is identification of any approving authority by a statute, naturally the law suggests that another original authority should issue such transfer order and who must be the holder of the rank lower than the Chief Security commissioner.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W. P. No. 22415 (W) of 2006 whereby and whereunder the impugned order of the writ application passed by the Director General/rpf on 11 th August, 2006 rejecting the representation on issue of transfer, was not interfered with.

( 3 ) THE learned Trial Judge considered the writ application as advanced by the respective writ petitioners on the point that even if there was any discrimination on issue of passing of a transfer order by allowing the representation of others, the same cannot be the subject-matter of the judicial review on the ground that the applicability of Article 14 of the constitution of India never could be construed in the negative angle but in the positive angle. However, before us on perusal of the records and documents it appears that there is a question of jurisdiction on issue of such transfer order having regard to the Standing Order No. 70 dated 27th September, 2004 as relied upon by the Director General aforesaid vis-a-vis the tenure of posting of any R. P. F. Personnel. It is the contention of the appellants before us that in the last posting wherefrom the writ petitioners were transferred to the different divisions, the five years tenure condition was not fulfilled to attract the order of transfer. However, it is submitted that no approval was sought for such pre-mature transfer in terms of the Standing Order. The learned Advocate for the respondents has opposed the appeal and applications both contending, inter alia, that all the writ petitioners are in Kharagpur Division for more than thirty years and, as such, the question of non-completion of tenure of five years has no relevancy as raised by the appellants and the transfer orders were not at all pre-mature transfer order.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the issue now is to be decided.

( 5 ) IN the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 read with Rules thereof there is no definition of the word 'transfer' by identifying the posting and the relevant issue thereof. But, the Standing Order 70 aforesaid has defined the words 'transfer' and 'posting'. From Clause 1 (A) of the said Standing order it appears that any posting either in a company and/or a unit and/or in any office from another post/company/unit or office in the same division, or any other division of the same zonal Railway or to RPSF unit shall be treated as transfer. The Clause 1 (A) reads such: -

"1. A. Transfer - For the purposes of RPF means any regular posting from one -RPF Post/coy/unit or Office to another Post/coy/ unit or Office in the same division or any other division of the same zonal railway or to other zonal railway or to RPSF and for the purposes of RPSF means regular posting from one battalion to another Rotation of staff from one Coy to another in the same battalion of RPSF shall not be treated as transfer".

( 6 ) THE tenure also has been defined under Clause 1 (B) which reads as follows: -

"1. B. Tenure -means the period of posting for various ranks in various places prescribed by Director-General".

( 7 ) UNDER Clause 3 of the said Standing Order tenure of officers/staff in any particular place of posting has been identified wherefrom it appears that the writ petitioners all of them except one who is holding the post of head constable came under Clause 3 (D) to identify the tenure of posting namely of five years. Under a note annexed under Clause 3 it appears that the aforesaid tenure of posting would not preclude the administration from transferring the staff under Rule 90 of R. P. F. Rules, 1987. The Clause 3 along with note is set out hereinbelow: -

3. Tenure of officers/staff.

A. Superior Officers excluding those Officers Posted in the office of the Railway Board Four years B : Officers posted in the Railway Board Five years