IMPORTANT POINT
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless it is in violation of mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide.

JUDGMENT

[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned transfer message/order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the third respondent and the consequential relieving order dated 30.9.2021 issued by the fifth respondent and to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.9.2021 in terms of the Standing Order No.5/2012 dated 27.2.2013 issued by the second respondent.

[2] With consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

[3] The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2014 and after successful completion of the training at CRPF Academy, Gurgaon in February, 2015, the petitioner was posted at 75 Bn. Jammu & Kashmir from March, 2015 to October, 2018 and thereafter, the petitioner was posted at 69 Bn. Mantripukhri, Imphal since 22.10.2018. While that being so, vide impugned message/order dated 29.9.2021, the petitioner along with five other officers were transferred and the petitioner was posted at 151 Bn. Chhattishgarh, which according to the petitioner is highly improper, illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

[4] Assailing the impugned transfer message/order dated 29.9.2021 and the consequential relieving order dated 30.09.2021, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was transferred before completion of three years in the home posting. He would submit that as per the Standing Order dated 27.2.2013, when an employee is to be transferred, he should be given 20 days time, whereas the third respondent has given only three days time, which is totally against the Standing Order.

[5] Learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the Standing Order, the Assistant Commandant should be transferred only on 1st March, but the impugned transferred was issued during September, 2021. Learned counsel would also submit that after issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.9.2021 seeking one year extension to serve in the present place, which has not been considered so far by the respondent authorities.

[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also argued that CCS Rules would be applicable in the case of the petitioner and he should be given 20 days time for joining. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Prsanna Kumar Nath v. State of Assam and others, 2005 (4) GLT 348 : 2004 Legal Eagle (GAU) 410.

(ii) Dayal Das v. State of Assam and others, 2002 (2) GLT 109 : 2001 Legal Eagle (GAU) 220.

[7] Per contra, Mr. S. Suresh, the learned Additional Solicitor-General of India appearing for the respondents submitted that the transfer order was issued on 29.9.2021, followed with the relieving order on 30.9.2021. The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.9.2021 and the writ petition was filed on 1.10.2021 without giving any breathing time to the respondent authorities to pass orders on the representation dated 30.9.2021. Hence, the petitioner cannot complain that the respondent authorities have not considered the representation of the petitioner dated 30.9.2021.

[8] Learned ASGI further submitted that the petitioner is an Assistant Commandant and not an ordinary police constable and that the transfer order was issued not only to the petitioner, but also five other officers, who have not challenged the impugned transfer order. Learned ASGI would also submit that being an Assistant Commandant, the petitioner should obey the order of his higher officials, which was made on an administrative ground.

[9] Learned ASGI then submitted that since the petitioner’s appointment is transferable and he had also given an undertaking at the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner cannot now question the impugned transfer order and firstly, he should obe