IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No. 17377 of 2021

and WMP.Nos. 18428 & 18429 of 2021

C.Livingston … Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment)

Office of Directorate General,

Central Reserve Police Force,

Block No.1, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.

2.The Inspector General of Police,

Karnataka – Kerala Sector (KKS)

Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)

Group Centre, Doddaballapur Road,

Yelahanka, Bengaluru,

Karnataka – 560064.

3.The Commandant,

77 Battalion,

Central Reserve Police Force,

Poonamalle, Chennai -600056.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to

the impugned order of the third respondent in No.T.IX.02/2021-

77-EC-1 dated 9.8.2021 and quash the same and direct the

Respondents to retain the petitioner in the present station

itself namely coimbatore in the light of the orders passed by

this Honourable court in S.Dakshinamurthy Vs The Inspector

General of Police southern sector Hyderabad in W.A.No.1273 /

2017 dated 25.10.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manojkumar

For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, SCGSC- R1& R2

Mrs. S.Anitha, Spl.GP - R3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner has joined service as Constable in Central Reserve

Police Force and served in various places. While the petitioner

was serving in F-Company of 77 Battalion at Coimbatore , the 3^rd

respondent had passed the impugned order transferring the

petitioner to 67 Battalion at Mehalaya. The petitioner made

representation to the respondent to consider the petitioner's

request of the petitioner stating reason that he is suffering

from severe heart disease and having bilateral avascular

necrosis (loss of blood supply to the bones)and he cannot

withstand the extreme cold and require home food. As a result of

which, his health condition will be be deteriorated to maximum

extent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that so far the petitioner has obeyed the orders of

the respondent. After completing 20 years of service during the

year 2023 and due to prevailing health conditions, as per Rules,

the petitioner preferred voluntary retirement from service(VRS),

therefore, the respondent has to consider the representation of

the petitioner to retain him in the present place i.e Coimbatore

or any other place nearby Tamil Nadu. To that extent the

petitioner has also made representation to reconsider the

impugned order .

3. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents 1 &2 objected the contentions made

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

submitted that in light of the several decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the petitioner does not have any legal right to

challenge the transfer order made on administrative reasons.

4. It is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs.State of Bihar

reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 has held that the Courts should not

interfere with the transfer orders made on administrative

reasons unless the there is violation of any mandatory statutory

rule or on the ground of malafide. The relevant portion of the

judgment is extracted below;

“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere

with a transfer order which are made in public

interest and for administrative reasons unless the

transfer orders are made in violation of any

mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of

malafide.

A G