Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 29th April, 2013 Annexure-P/1. By this order, the petitioner, a Pharmacist working in the BSF is transferred to the 01st Bn. NDRF. This is challenged on the ground that petitioner being a Pharmacist belongs to technical cadre. As per policy dated 21/11/2011 Annexure-P/3, the normal tenure of posting of technical personnel is 4 years and petitioner has been transferred before completion of said period of 4 years. Shri Bharodirya relied on earlier transfer order dated 3rd July, 2009, whereby he was transferred and brought to Tekanpur. Counting it from that date, it is stated that petitioner had not completed 4 years. By placing reliance on Annexure-P/6 it is stated that petitioner has to be treated as holding the technical post. The employer is required to prepare a list category wise to show about the category of each employee. Lastly, it is stated that petitioner''s children are studying and he is suffering from certain ailments and this transfer will create tremendous inconvenience to him.

Per Contra, Shri Chetan Kanungo learned counsel for the other side supported the order and submits that orders are passed in administrative exigency and no interference is warranted. He relied on certain Supreme Court judgments in favour of his contention.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced at par.

This is trite in law that transfer is an incident and condition of service. Transfer order can be interfered with only if it runs contrary to the statutory provision, proved to be a mala fide one, changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment or issued by an incompetent authority. Petitioner has relied on Annexure-P/3 to submit that normal tenure of technical personnel is 4 years. In the considered opinion of this Court, Annexure-P/3 is only an administrative instruction. Even, if Annexure-P/3 is violated, it will not render the transfer order as illegal. Even otherwise, petitioner had completed 4 years till date from 3rd July, 2009, when the earlier movement order was issued, by which he was brought to Tekanpur. The petitioner is unable to establish any of the ingredients mentioned above, on which interference can be made in the writ jurisdiction. Personal inconvenience is no ground for interference. More so, when petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. Petitioner''s representation for cancellation of transfer order is already rejected by the respondents (Annexure-R/6). Petitioner has not chosen to challenge this order by way of amendment or otherwise. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs.