Point of Law: It is well settled principle of service law that power to transfer an employee in a transferable service, is within prerogative of employer for it is he who knows best where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for establishment.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The facts of the instant case bring to the fore a classic instance of how a litigant, with the help of clever lawyers, can successfully tweak the law and the legal system in her favour, and avoid transfers and postings that form an integral part of her conditions of service. The appellant protagonist is an ASI/Clerk in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and she has managed to continue in the home station at Kochi for nearly a decade, much to the chagrin and exasperation of her employers who are charged with administering a disciplined and uniformed force.

THE FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The appellant joined the service of the CISF in the rank of Head Constable/Clerk on 22.09.2007 under a compassionate appointment scheme. Her father was a Naik in the CISF who died in an ambush by armed militants, while on duty at Nagaland. She was promoted as ASI/Clerk and posted in Cochin on 24.01.2008. She continued as such till 31.10.2013 and thereafter she was posted at the CISF unit in Cochin Port Trust with effect from 1.11.2013. In June 2015, when she was transferred to Vishakapatnam by an order dated 06.06.2015, she approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.18515 of 2015 that was disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider a representation preferred by her against the transfer. The respondents considered her representation favourably and cancelled the order of transfer by relying on the applicable guidelines for transfer that envisaged, inter alia, that in cases where a husband and wife were both in Central Government service, they had to be retained in the same station as far as possible. She thus continued in Cochin till 2017.

3. It is significant that the appellant’s husband is employed in the Fertilisers & Chemicals (Travancore) Limited, a Central Public Sector Undertaking that has offices only in Kerala, and hence if the guidelines are treated as mandatory and invariable, the appellant can never be transferred out of Cochin. By an order dated 16.03.2017, the appellant was transferred to NTPC, Kudigi (Karnataka). She impugned the said order through W.P(C).No.9392 of 2017 that was disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider a representation that she had preferred against the transfer. When the said representation came to be rejected by the respondents, she once again approached this Court through W.P(C). No.16682 of 2017 contending inter alia that by virtue of the specific provisions in the guidelines, she could not be transferred to a station other than one where her husband was posted. This time around, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of transfer, more so when she had been continuing in Kerala for more than 8 years, and in the Cochin unit for more than 3 years and 8 months. The Court also found that no mala fides had been established by the appellant and therefore the transfer order could not be assailed, more so when it pertained to the transfer of an employee in a disciplined force. The learned Judge, however, directed the respondents to consider her case for a re-transfer to Cochin as and when vacancies were available at the Cochin unit, after accommodating the officers who were awaiting such transfers, without waiting for the appellant to complete three years at the transferred station.

4. The appellant thereafter joined service at Kudigi on 6.7.2017. Immediately thereafter, however, the respondents considered her request for re-transfer and posted her back at the BPCL unit in Cochin by an order dated 22.09.2017. She reported for duty at the BPCL unit with effect from 07.10.2017. Significantly, even during her three month tenure at Kudigi, she effectively worked there only for three days, as the remaining period was covered by the leave and joining time that she had availed during her posting there. It was while she was working at the BPCL unit in Cochin that by the order dated 03.09.2021, impugned in the writ petition, she was transferred to the