Judicial review of administrative transfers is limited; courts uphold orders unless clear legal violations are evident.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Service - Employment Policy - Rule under Central Industrial Security Force - A Constable challenged transfer order on grounds of personal health and family employment in Delhi after long service in NCR - Court upheld transfer but directed prompt decision on pending representations for continued posting in Delhi. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 11)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Courts ordinarily do not interfere with administrative transfer orders unless there is a clear violation of rules or principles of natural justice. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Constable with over eleven years of service in Delhi, challenged his transfer order to Himachal Pradesh on health grounds and family’s employment.

Findings of Court:
The court was not inclined to interfere with the transfer but mandated the respondents to consider the pending representations within fifteen days.

Issues: Key issues included the validity of the transfer order and the petitioner's request for continued posting based on health and family circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of judicial interference in administrative matters, asserting that representation must be addressed as per protocol without judicial intervention.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. orders regarding the applications and petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's transfer challenged based on health and family. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's direction for timely resolution of representations. (Para 6 , 9 , 11)
4. conditions regarding compliance with the movement order. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM Nos.18410-11/2021 (both for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5860/2021 & CM No.18409/2021 (for stay)

3. The petitioner, a Constable (General Duty) in the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and posted at Delhi since the year 2009, inspite of having lived in Delhi for the last more than eleven years, has filed this petition impugning the order dated 28th May, 2021 of his transfer to Chamera in Himachal Pradesh.

4. The transfer has been challenged on the grounds of, health of the petitioner and employment of the wife of the petitioner at Delhi, as a Nursing Officer in Ophthalmology Department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi.

5. The counsel for the respondents CISF appears on advance notice and states that the petitioner has been posted in National Capital Region (NCR) since the year 2003. On enquiry, it is stated that prior to the present posting at Delhi since 2009, the petitioner, since the year 2003 was posted at Ghaziabad.

6. Having gone through the facts, we are not inclined to interfere.

7. The counsel for the petitioner then states that the respondents CISF be directed to decide the representations dated 16th January, 2021 and 25th March, 2021 of the petitioner, for being continued to be posted at Delhi.

8. We have informed the counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner, in the event of his representations being rejected, shall not be entitled to approach the Court again.

9. The counsel for the petitioner is agreeable thereto.

10. On enquiry, whether the petitioner has been served the movement order, the answer is in the negative.

11. The petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to decide the representations dated 16th January, 2021 and 25th March, 2021 of the petitioner as well as the representation as contained in this petition, within 15 days hereof. If the petitioner, before the representations are decided within 15 days, is asked to move, the petitioner shall be bound to comply with the movement order, without prejudice to his rights and contentions and subject to the decision on his representations and if does not do so, would do so at his own peril.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document