Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
BAIJU KURIAN .V – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, – Respondent
WP(C)/15177/2022
Transfer - Employment - Service Regulations - 1, 2, 3 - The court upheld the authority to transfer personnel in uniformed services while interpreting that such transfers are valid unless proven otherwise through statutory violations or mala fides.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged her transfer order, stating health issues and her husband's ongoing tenure at the same station. The husband also contested his transfer, citing family obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that transfers were justified on administrative grounds and the petitioner had completed her tenure. It considered the lack of specific evidence for mala fides or statutory violations.
Issues: Whether the transfer orders issued were justified and whether the courts could intervene in transfer decisions in the absence of statutory violations or mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfers within uniformed services are permissible based on administrative necessity and should not be interfered with by courts unless there is evidence of statutory violations or abuse of discretion.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8 th day of July, 2022 W.P.(C) No.14412/2022 is filed by a Lady Inspector/ Executive of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at BPCL, Cochin against the order transferring her to the CISF Unit NLC Neyveli as per Ext.P4. The ground stated was that her husband is also posted at CISF Unit BPCL, Cochin and that he had not completed his normal tenure of three years at the present place of posting. It is contended that the petitioner had been shuffled to five stations in four States since 2015 and that the health grounds raised by her had also not been considered.
2. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 26.4.2022 directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation preferred by the petitioner. It was directed that the orders of transfer shall not be enforced till then. It is submitted that an order has now been passed rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner by Ext.P8 order dated 13.6.2022. The said order is also challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is passed without considering the specific contentions. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of this Court inMini K.T. v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC [ 2018 (1) KHC 307 ] and of the Apex Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.) v.Union of India [2017 (4)
KLT 1].
3. In W.P.(C) No.15177/2022, the husband of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14412/2022 challenges the order dated 21.4.2022 transferring him to Neyveli. It is stated that the mother and brother of the petitioner are depending on him and that the premature transfer will adversely affect the treatment of his mother and brother. It is contended that cutting short the tenure of the rare home stay posting without reasons will lower the morale of the personnel and there is no exigency of service requiring the transfer of the petitioner.
4. A statement has been placed on record by the ASGI in W.P.(C) No.14412/2022. It is stated therein that the petitioner being a member of a para military force is duty bound to serve the country wherever her services are required. It is stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner was sympathetically considered by the 2nd respondent and the contentions raised were specifically addressed. Thereafter, by order dated 21.4.2022 the husband of the petitioner was also transferred to Neyveli considering the difficulties pointed out by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners can now have no complaints against the transfer. It is contended that the transfer is a routine affair and is ordered in administrative exigencies and the petitioners would not be justified in challenging the same.
5. The learned ASGI also places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court inMajor General J.K.Bansal v. Union of India and others [ (2005) 7 SCC 227 ]. It is contended that the Apex Court had considered the precedents and had held that constitutional courts should not interfere with a transfer order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory or statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the specific reasons stated in Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.14412/2022 that the petitioner had completed her normal tenure and that the transfer was necessitated on administrative grounds, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in interfering in an order of transfer, especially where the petitioners are members of a uniformed service. This Court cannot enter into an enquiry as to the reasons for the transfer or the necessity for the same, in the absence of any sustainable grounds of mala fide or violation of any statutory provisions. The contention that the minor child of the petitioners had to frequently change schools can also not hold good in view of the fact that there is no contention that the child's education has suffered in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
