Gajendra Singh Meena @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India

This writ petition has filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordship may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and

(i). By an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof, the impugned order dated 9.10.2017 of transferring the petitioner from Ajmer

Division to Bikaner Division, in violation of transfer policy laid down by the Director, Railway Protection Force, in their letters dated 17.6.2003,

08.09.2003, 04.01.2006 and 10.07.2009, may kindly be quash and set aside.

(ii). By an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof, the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue his service on

the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force at RPF Outpost, Loco Workshops (C & W), N.W.R., Ajmer, as prior to the impugned order dated

09.10.2017, with all consequential benefits.

(iii). Issue any other writ order or direction, which the Hon’blae Court deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been transferred by the respondents vide order dated 9.10.2017 from Ajmer Division to

Bikaner Division.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been transferred mala fidely and the petitioner has levelled allegation of mala fide

against respondent No.3, Security Commissioner of Railway protection Force, North-Western Railway, Ajmer.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is General Secretary of the Employees Association and in that capacity, he has raised

grievances of the employees to the respondent No.3 and being annoyed with this action, the respondent No.3 has transferred the petitioner from

Ajmer Division to Bikaner Division.

Counsel further submits that the respondents No.3 while transferring the petitioner has violated the guidelines of the department, wherein, it has been

mentioned that ordinarily the office bearers of the Employees Association would not be transferred till the end of their tenure.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has also lodged FIR and respondent No.3 has asked him to withdraw the same. Counsel submits that under

the present facts and circumstances, the impugned order of transfer deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs.

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and Ors., reported in 2000(1) RLW 233 (Raj.).

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Constable in Ajmer Division since 2010 and he has been transferred

due to administrative exigencies in the interest of administration.

Counsel further submits that not only the petitioner, another person has also been transferred from Ajmer Division to Jodhpur Division.

Counsel further submits that by transferring the petitioner, his seniority and salary would not be affected in any manner.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no right to continue at a particular place and the employee can be transferred from one place to another

due to administrative exigencies.

In support of contentions, counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of

Haryana and Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh and Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 306, where in paras 11,12,14 & 15 it has been held as under:-

“11. Thus, a plain perusal of the Punjab Police Rules shows that transfer can be done from one district to another district or even to another range,

and there is no absolute prohibition for doing so. However, in such a case, the seniority of Constables and Head Constables at the district level and of

ASIs and Sis at the range level is maintained in the present district/range despite the transfer. Promotion/confirmation is also given strictly as per the

seniority in the parent district/range level, as per Memo No. 43515-22/E-(III) dated 10.8.2010.

Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly

illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned

which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned

may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their

assessment of the law and order and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters and it is well settled that Courts must not

ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular V. Union of India.

In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be

created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to

another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. Courts should

not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other

legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Holmes, J. of the US

Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.

(1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11

1989 Supp (1) SCC 679: 1989 SCC (L&S)501: (1989) 11 ATC 278

(2003) 10 SCC 14 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 524

This Court also held in Aravali Golf Club Vs. Chander Hass and Common Cause Vs. Union of India that Judges must observe judicial restraint

and must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the legislature or the executive.â€​

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly, it is not the right of an employee to continue at a particular

place, whereas, in my considered view, it is for the employer to take services of its employee and in the administrative exigencies an employee can be

transferred from one place to another in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Kashmir

Singh and Anr. (supra). Secondly, the petitioner belongs to Security Forces and he being Member of Railway Protection Force,

I am not inclined to interfere in such a matter where security of a Division is involved; thirdly, although the petitioner has levelled the allegation of mala

fides against the respondent No.3 but in my considered view would not debar the official respondents in transferring the petitioner in the interest of

administration, to maintain good & disciplined atmosphere at the working place.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.