AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is a Constable in the Railway Protection Force was transferred from Moradabad Division to Lucknow Division by the order dated 7th June, 2010. This transfer order was assailed by the petitioner and one Virendra Kumar Sharma, who was also transferred by filing Writ Petition No. 35190 of 2010 which was dismissed by the order dated 15th July, 2010.
It transpires that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation dated 15th August, 2010 before the Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi for cancellation of the transfer order. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to decide the said representation in the light of Rule 93.7 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'').
Sri Govind Saran learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that this petition deserves to be dismissed since the petitioner has not even mentioned about the filing of the earlier writ petition and its dismissal.
It is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no necessity of making any mention about the filing of the earlier writ petition and its dismissal since in the present petition the relief claimed by the petitioner is on the basis of Rule 93.7 of the Rules.
It is not possible to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the representation dated 15th August, 2010 shows that it makes no mention of the said Rule and even the prayer contained in the representation is for taking a sympathetic view and for setting aside the transfer order.
Rule 93.7 on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner is as follows:
Where a member of the Force before completion of his normal tenure at a particular place, wishes to get himself transferred to another place so that his children may have continuity of education at the new station for next few years, such member may be allowed transfer, before completion of normal tenure, after taking into account the interest of administration.
The representation is not for cutting short the tenure of the petitioner at Lucknow but it only seeks the quashing of the transfer order, which, as noticed hereinabove, was impugned in Writ Petition No. 35190 of 2010, which was dismissed by the Court by the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2010 with the following observations:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of transfer from District-Shahjahanpur to District-Lucknow. Petitioners being members of disciplinary force i.e. Railway Protection Force have been transferred from one place to another. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that according to the standing order the term of posting at a particular place is fixed and before that no order of transfer can be passed. Further, according to the policy, the transfer can be made prior to 31st March of the year, but petitioners'' order of transfer has been passed subsequently, therefore, is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, Sri Govind Saran, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the standing order is only a guideline to facilitate the department and the employees of the disciplinary force to act accordingly. It has got no statutory force. Further submission has been made by the respondents that petitioners on the basis of order of transfer have already joined the place of posting and are still working, therefore, now no relief can be granted to them.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. Petitioners being member of the disciplined force cannot agitate before the Court regarding the order of transfer, if it has been passed in a routine manner adhering to the policies and service rules unless and until it is established that it is mala fide and has been passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, I see no justification to interfere in the order impugned transferring the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
The petitioner should have mentioned about the filing of the earlier writ petition and its dismissal but that has not been done and it is for circumventing the earlier order that the representation has been filed and placing reliance of Rule 93.7 of the Rules, which has not even being mentioned in the representation, this petition has been filed. The said representation, as noticed hereinabove, is for quashing the transfer order on account of the studies of the children.
The preliminary objection raised by Sri Govind Saran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has substance.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has concealed material facts about the filing of the earlier writ petition and its dismissal.