Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Goutam Manna - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 800 of 2022
Decided On : 02-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, C.G.S.C., for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
Administrative transfers are within the authority's discretion, and employees have no vested right to remain posted at a specific location. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are essential for effective administration and should not be challenged through a writ petition.

Headnote:
Transfer - Violation of Standing Order No.03/2016 - Para 7(h)(ii) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Standing Order No.03/2016, Para 7(h)(ii), Para 7C(h)(i), Para 7C(h)(ii), Para 7C(h)(iii) - The court discussed the violation of the guidelines for transfer and posting as per Standing Order No.03/2016, specifically focusing on Para 7(h)(ii) and the administrative feasibility and tenure policy. The court highlighted the petitioner's entitlement for one choice posting and the authority's discretion in effecting transfers based on administrative feasibility and tenure policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a transfer and posting order, claiming it violated Standing Order No.03/2016. The petitioner had completed more than 4 years in a hard area against the prescribed tenure of 2 years and was transferred to a location not within the choices submitted through SAMBHAV App.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer and posting order did not violate the Standing Order as the petitioner had initially requested the location to which he was transferred. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are an administrative prerogative and that the petitioner's representations had been duly considered and passed orders by the respondent authorities.
Issues: Violation of transfer guidelines, entitlement for choice posting, administrative feasibility and tenure policy, petitioner's representations
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the administrative transfers were within the authority's discretion and that the petitioner's transfer did not violate the Standing Order. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are essential for effective administration and that the petitioner's representations had been duly considered and passed orders by the respondent authorities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned transfer and posting order dated 21.7.2022 in respect of the petitioner and the order dated 10.8.2022, as it was issued in violation of the Standing Order No.03/2016 and in view of the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.589 of 2022 dated 9.8.2022 and W.P.(C) No.687 of 2022 dated 6.9.2022 and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to be posted in any Kolkata or GC DPR, BBSR, SLG, AGT, JSR, CH BBSR, 106 RAF or any Bn deployed at WB, Tripura, Jharkhand in view of Para No.7(h) (ii) read with Para No.I (i) & 10 (d) of the Standing Order No.03/2016.

2. Heard Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned C.G.S.C for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 21.7.2022, the petitioner was transferred and posted to IG-Orissa and the petitioner was made to submit a list of total 28 choice of postings and IGOrissa was never given as a choice posting. None from amongst the battalions/units given as choice posting was allotted, but the petitioner was transferred and posted to IG-Orissa in violation of Standing Order No.3/2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.7.2022 and the same has been rejected vide order dated 10.8.2022. On 10.8.2022, the petitioner also submitted a representation to IG (Pers), New Delhi. Since no reply was given, he made another representation on 8.9.2022 and the same has been rejected by the DIG (Org) vide order dated 15.9.2022. Challenging the impugned order dated 21.7.2022, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has given Composite Hospital Bubaneshwar and GC Bhubaneshwar in his 4th and 6th choice while applying in SANTOS APP. His desired location at CH Bhubaneshwar/GC Bhubaneshwar are located in the same campus and is seen in the organisational setup paper where it can be reflected by the addresses. It is stated that the petitioner had requested for Bhubaneshwar and he has been transferred to Bhubaneshwar.

5. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that transfer and posting of the ministerial staff, including the petitioner are governed by the stipulations/guidelines as laid down in the Standing Order No.03/2016 dated 29.12.2016. Though the normal tenure of posting in Directorate will be 3 years, extension may be given in exceptional cases to the officer whose services are considered essential based on the recommendation of IGP of the Branch. In any case, the total tenure at the Directorate should not be more than 5 years at a stretch.

6. The learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is a resident of West Bengal, his posting in the State of Manipur, particularly in the GC Imphal and the office of the IG M&N Sector is a hard area posting. As per the stipulation laid down in the guideline No.4(a), the petitioner's tenure is to be 2 years, but was extended by another 2 years in the office of IG M&N Sector, thereby serving 4 years in the State of Manipur.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that in the early part of 2022, the petitioner came to know that his name has been included for Summer Chain Transfer 2022, as he had already completed 4 years of hard area posting against the prescribed tenure of 2 years. He submits that guideline No.7(h)(ii) laid down that officials posted in J&K, NE Region and LWE are will be considered for one choice out of 5 choices subject to administrative feasibility and tenure policy. However, officials completing tenure in LWE area will be given due preference.

8. The learned counsel added that the petitioner who has a hardship score of 384.55 and was made to submit a list of 28 choices through the SANTOS software. Surprisingly and much to the concentration, the DIG (Org) Dte, CRPF issued the impugned transfer ord